5 ms·

I also might feel disappointment, but I think that the greater disappointment would come from learning that foundational principles in physics had been overturn

I also might feel disappointment, but I think that the greater disappointment would come from learning that foundational principles in physics had been overturned, because what it would mean is that we've all done a really, unacceptably bad job of getting a true version of reality. The difference between Newtonian physics and Special Relativity is not so much as to shake basic scientific principles to their core. But overturning conservation of momentum is like saying that we're making up physical laws as we go along.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
> but I think that the greater disappointment would come from learning that foundational principles in physics had been overturned, That would have been exciting, actually. More stuff to learn, more natural laws to discover, more possibilities!
- wruza 6y ago
  I’m not a physicist, but it seemed unlikely that one can overturn a century of physics research by microwaving a bucket. Unlikely that something so obvious yet groundbreaking wasn’t encountered in any other experiment ever made, in one form or another.
yetihehe 6y ago
> But overturning conservation of momentum is like saying that we're making up physical laws as we go along. We ARE making up physical laws as we go along. We see something unexpected, we try to find why it could be, we invent new possible laws of nature and we check if those laws are sticking to wall with experiments. What sticks to wall, is then called "law of nature", but it might nit be exact or true. We only know it fits what we've seen up to now.
garmaine 6y ago
> but I think that the greater disappointment would come from learning that foundational principles in physics had been overturned, because what it would mean is that we've all done a really, unacceptably bad job of getting a true version of reality Physicist here: that's not how physics works, at all. We don't even pretend to have a "true" (complete?) model of reality at all. There are many gaps in our knowledge. Unfortunately they are either so small, so large, or so high energy that we can't easily expand across those limits to our knowledge using data gathered from labs here on Earth. But every now and then you get a really simple test that demonstrates a gap in our knowledge that reveals new physics, and that's how we make advances. If the Em drive were real, it would be just like the photoelectric effect or quantum-slit interference patterns: things which defy classical explanations but which are evidently quite real. And I assure you, those were NOT disappointments. Far from it--every physicist dreams of discovering such an experiment, and it would certainly win the Nobel prize.
- arethuza 6y ago
  "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka' but 'That’s funny...'" Isaac Asimov
ganafagol 6y ago
> [...] is like saying that we're making up physical laws as we go along. Um .. what's your alternative description on how scientific knowledge comes about?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
adwn 6y ago
> The difference between Newtonian physics and Special Relativity is not so much as to shake basic scientific principles to their core. But it is! Before special relativity, conservation of mass was thought to be a law of physics; SR refined this law to conservation of mass-energy.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  But "refinement" is the correct word to use. In the vast majority of scenarios, you can keep your conservation of mass separate from your conservation of energy. You only have to pay attention in very specific cases: fusion, fission, and relative velocities that are quite intense. This refinement, which we see again and again in physics, is "oh, sure, if you do THIS, here's a correction you can apply ... should start showing up three or four sigfigs in."
- kelnos 6y ago
  I think the difference here is that conservation of mass was an incomplete understanding of what was going on, and conservation of mass-energy was an evolution of the law. If the EmDrive worked, it would mean that several foundational things are just wrong. Not incomplete, just completely wrong.
moring 6y ago
> The difference between Newtonian physics and Special Relativity is not so much as to shake basic scientific principles to their core. Special relativity says that the temporal order in which events happen can () depend on the frame of reference of the viewer, and thus, such events do not have any objective order in which they occur. () that is, if their relative "time-position" is spacelike, or in other words, if light is "too slow" to travel from one event occurring to the other event occuring. To add on top of this, it says that if faster-than-light particles exist, a chain of FoRs can be constructed such that an event happens before itself. If that isn't shaking basic principles, I don't know what is.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Newtonian momentum is not conserved in Special Relativity. That is, momentum is conserved, but momentum is redefined - it's not just mass times velocity any longer. The new definition is more correct than the previous one. Had this worked, it probably wouldn't have overturned conservation of momentum either. It might have redefined momentum again, though.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

> but I think that the greater disappointment would come from learning that foundational principles in physics had been overturned, That would have been exciting, actually. More stuff to learn, more natural laws to discover, more possibilities!

wruza 6y ago
I’m not a physicist, but it seemed unlikely that one can overturn a century of physics research by microwaving a bucket. Unlikely that something so obvious yet groundbreaking wasn’t encountered in any other experiment ever made, in one form or another.

yetihehe 6y ago

> But overturning conservation of momentum is like saying that we're making up physical laws as we go along. We ARE making up physical laws as we go along. We see something unexpected, we try to find why it could be, we invent new possible laws of nature and we check if those laws are sticking to wall with experiments. What sticks to wall, is then called "law of nature", but it might nit be exact or true. We only know it fits what we've seen up to now.

garmaine 6y ago

> but I think that the greater disappointment would come from learning that foundational principles in physics had been overturned, because what it would mean is that we've all done a really, unacceptably bad job of getting a true version of reality Physicist here: that's not how physics works, at all. We don't even pretend to have a "true" (complete?) model of reality at all. There are many gaps in our knowledge. Unfortunately they are either so small, so large, or so high energy that we can't easily expand across those limits to our knowledge using data gathered from labs here on Earth. But every now and then you get a really simple test that demonstrates a gap in our knowledge that reveals new physics, and that's how we make advances. If the Em drive were real, it would be just like the photoelectric effect or quantum-slit interference patterns: things which defy classical explanations but which are evidently quite real. And I assure you, those were NOT disappointments. Far from it--every physicist dreams of discovering such an experiment, and it would certainly win the Nobel prize.

arethuza 6y ago
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka' but 'That’s funny...'" Isaac Asimov

ganafagol 6y ago

> [...] is like saying that we're making up physical laws as we go along. Um .. what's your alternative description on how scientific knowledge comes about?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

adwn 6y ago

> The difference between Newtonian physics and Special Relativity is not so much as to shake basic scientific principles to their core. But it is! Before special relativity, conservation of mass was thought to be a law of physics; SR refined this law to conservation of mass-energy.

at_a_remove 6y ago
But "refinement" is the correct word to use. In the vast majority of scenarios, you can keep your conservation of mass separate from your conservation of energy. You only have to pay attention in very specific cases: fusion, fission, and relative velocities that are quite intense. This refinement, which we see again and again in physics, is "oh, sure, if you do THIS, here's a correction you can apply ... should start showing up three or four sigfigs in."
kelnos 6y ago
I think the difference here is that conservation of mass was an incomplete understanding of what was going on, and conservation of mass-energy was an evolution of the law. If the EmDrive worked, it would mean that several foundational things are just wrong. Not incomplete, just completely wrong.

moring 6y ago

> The difference between Newtonian physics and Special Relativity is not so much as to shake basic scientific principles to their core. Special relativity says that the temporal order in which events happen can () depend on the frame of reference of the viewer, and thus, such events do not have any objective order in which they occur. () that is, if their relative "time-position" is spacelike, or in other words, if light is "too slow" to travel from one event occurring to the other event occuring. To add on top of this, it says that if faster-than-light particles exist, a chain of FoRs can be constructed such that an event happens before itself. If that isn't shaking basic principles, I don't know what is.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Newtonian momentum is not conserved in Special Relativity. That is, momentum is conserved, but momentum is redefined - it's not just mass times velocity any longer. The new definition is more correct than the previous one. Had this worked, it probably wouldn't have overturned conservation of momentum either. It might have redefined momentum again, though.