7 ms·

Why does it take physicists so long to find the complete foundation of the universe? I want an answer in my lifetime.

by mseepgood 6y ago

gbpz 6y ago
I blame the mathematicians anf the engineers.
mhh__ 6y ago
So far we're struggling to reverse engineer all the perl it was hacked together with
- collinvandyck76 6y ago
  the container that runs the simulation is extremely hard to escape from
- MichaelApproved 6y ago
  I know you’re joking around but does the universe seem hacked together to you? I feel like it’s incredibly elegant. All these low level rules are able to create such complex structures with beautiful order to it. It’s so orderly, we can play things backwards billions of years. We can look back to how things were just a fraction of a second after this version of the universe began. It’s astonishing.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    It's too bad we'll almost certainly never be able to answer the meta question of how or why we ended up with the rules we did.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      These questions are more metaphysics than science. I, personally, am partial to the idea that the anthropic principle has a pretty big role to play, at least in terms of the fundamental constants.
      - xxpor 6y ago
        That's why I didn't say metaphysics specifically. I really mean the scientific answer to the question rather than a philosophical one. How did we end up with bosons, gluons, etc as opposed to anything else? Maybe it was totally random. A combo of it being random, the anthropic principle being true, and the possibility that the big bang was actually proceeded by the collapse of $current_universe - 1 due to heat death seems plausible. It could turn out we're actually on universe number 1 trillion and this was the first one where the randomness worked out where it'd support life. Or maybe it's even the second. We'd never be able to figure it out either way.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Maybe. The fact that a treatment of particle physics based on Symmetry groups works so well is rather odd, but equally why should it be that way? Elegance is subjective, mathematical elegance even more so.
  - criddell 6y ago
    But can we explain just what exactly quantum mechanics is?
ganzuul 6y ago
Hilbert's tomb: Wir müssen wissen Wir werden wissen You should not be downvoted. Spare the world a little cruelty where we can.
- vecter 6y ago
  He/she is being downvoted for demanding an answer, as if they're entitled to one but all the physicists out there are just too dumb to figure it out or refuse to give them what they are owed. Perhaps that is not how this person actually feels. If so, a little humility and empathy in their communication would go a long way to rectify that.
  - ganzuul 6y ago
    Hilbert demanded an answer too. Gödel showed that his effort would never reach its goal. We are all still reeling from the blow.
    - rrss 6y ago
      The tomb next to hilbert: "I must know. Why do the mathematicians take so long to find out?"
ISL 6y ago
Physicist here: 1. One should be rather specific about what 'the complete foundation' might comprise. The depth of questions one can ask is infinite, but some questions are more important than others. The g-2 experiment is asking a specific question: "Does the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon open a door to discoveries that are inaccessible with modern colliders?" It is tempting to regard fundamental physics as a study of "Why are we here?", but it is really a study of "How are we here?" The difference is subtle but substantial. If "Why?" is what you're seeking, you are more likely to find that answer within, rather than within the study of physics. 2. Physicists can do a lot more in these directions with greater institutional support. With great sadness, I recently departed a lab, where colleagues next-door were working on this very experiment, precisely because a collision between funding rules and administrative priorities made further progress within my specialty unsustainable. I was the third postdoc in a row to do the same; not for lack of scientific promise nor ability to attract grants.
- mseepgood 6y ago
  > It is tempting to regard fundamental physics as a study of "Why are we here?", but it is really a study of "How are we here?" The difference is subtle but substantial. If "Why?" is what you're seeking, you are more likely to find that answer within, rather than within the study of physics. I don't want to know why, I just want to know the complete set of rules at the lowest level.
  - ISL 6y ago
    It is unlikely that we will ever grasp the complete set of rules at the lowest level. I don't say this to be defeatist, but rather as a statement of pragmatism. To do so would be to have a convincing grasp of Planck-scale physics -- a detailed understanding of physics at and above energy-densities reached in the Big Bang. Some precision experiments and astrophysical measurements do constrain certain Planck-scale models, but a true test of whether or not we understand early-universe physics is likely to necessitate creating a few Big Bangs ourselves. Doing so, with known technology, seems impossible. If it were possible, doing so would seem fraught with actual risk. (N.B. for the non-expert reader: there are cosmic rays that strike the Sun at least once every five minutes (and Earth, at least once a month) with energies 10,000,000 times greater than anything humans have ever achieved. Those collisions, over the last 4,500,000,000 years, have not yet resulted in the disruption of spacetime or the formation of a black hole. You are very, very, very safe from physicists breaking the universe as you know it. :).) Edit to add: You, mseepgood, aren't alone in your desire for knowledge. One Stephen Hawking once stated, “My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.”
xxpor 6y ago
120 years ago, we had no model of the atom, no quantum theory, no relativity, and only the first hints of figuring out radioactivity. Yet we were able to split the atom in 1942, create the MOSFET in 1959, and started launching the first GPS satellites in 1978. It's hard to express how much progress we've made in such a small amount of time relative to the rest of history. It's a god damn miracle.
- Iwan-Zotow 6y ago
  screwed up half of biosphere as well...
sto_hristo 6y ago
It's theories galore out there that aim to describe everything. Proving them right/wrong via experiments is the hard part.

Why does it take physicists so long to find the complete foundation of the universe? I want an answer in my lifetime.

gbpz 6y ago

I blame the mathematicians anf the engineers.

mhh__ 6y ago

So far we're struggling to reverse engineer all the perl it was hacked together with

collinvandyck76 6y ago
the container that runs the simulation is extremely hard to escape from
MichaelApproved 6y ago
I know you’re joking around but does the universe seem hacked together to you? I feel like it’s incredibly elegant. All these low level rules are able to create such complex structures with beautiful order to it. It’s so orderly, we can play things backwards billions of years. We can look back to how things were just a fraction of a second after this version of the universe began. It’s astonishing.
- xxpor 6y ago
  It's too bad we'll almost certainly never be able to answer the meta question of how or why we ended up with the rules we did.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    These questions are more metaphysics than science. I, personally, am partial to the idea that the anthropic principle has a pretty big role to play, at least in terms of the fundamental constants.
    - xxpor 6y ago
      That's why I didn't say metaphysics specifically. I really mean the scientific answer to the question rather than a philosophical one. How did we end up with bosons, gluons, etc as opposed to anything else? Maybe it was totally random. A combo of it being random, the anthropic principle being true, and the possibility that the big bang was actually proceeded by the collapse of $current_universe - 1 due to heat death seems plausible. It could turn out we're actually on universe number 1 trillion and this was the first one where the randomness worked out where it'd support life. Or maybe it's even the second. We'd never be able to figure it out either way.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Maybe. The fact that a treatment of particle physics based on Symmetry groups works so well is rather odd, but equally why should it be that way? Elegance is subjective, mathematical elegance even more so.
- criddell 6y ago
  But can we explain just what exactly quantum mechanics is?

ganzuul 6y ago

Hilbert's tomb: Wir müssen wissen Wir werden wissen You should not be downvoted. Spare the world a little cruelty where we can.

vecter 6y ago
He/she is being downvoted for demanding an answer, as if they're entitled to one but all the physicists out there are just too dumb to figure it out or refuse to give them what they are owed. Perhaps that is not how this person actually feels. If so, a little humility and empathy in their communication would go a long way to rectify that.
- ganzuul 6y ago
  Hilbert demanded an answer too. Gödel showed that his effort would never reach its goal. We are all still reeling from the blow.
  - rrss 6y ago
    The tomb next to hilbert: "I must know. Why do the mathematicians take so long to find out?"

ISL 6y ago

Physicist here: 1. One should be rather specific about what 'the complete foundation' might comprise. The depth of questions one can ask is infinite, but some questions are more important than others. The g-2 experiment is asking a specific question: "Does the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon open a door to discoveries that are inaccessible with modern colliders?" It is tempting to regard fundamental physics as a study of "Why are we here?", but it is really a study of "How are we here?" The difference is subtle but substantial. If "Why?" is what you're seeking, you are more likely to find that answer within, rather than within the study of physics. 2. Physicists can do a lot more in these directions with greater institutional support. With great sadness, I recently departed a lab, where colleagues next-door were working on this very experiment, precisely because a collision between funding rules and administrative priorities made further progress within my specialty unsustainable. I was the third postdoc in a row to do the same; not for lack of scientific promise nor ability to attract grants.

mseepgood 6y ago
> It is tempting to regard fundamental physics as a study of "Why are we here?", but it is really a study of "How are we here?" The difference is subtle but substantial. If "Why?" is what you're seeking, you are more likely to find that answer within, rather than within the study of physics. I don't want to know why, I just want to know the complete set of rules at the lowest level.
- ISL 6y ago
  It is unlikely that we will ever grasp the complete set of rules at the lowest level. I don't say this to be defeatist, but rather as a statement of pragmatism. To do so would be to have a convincing grasp of Planck-scale physics -- a detailed understanding of physics at and above energy-densities reached in the Big Bang. Some precision experiments and astrophysical measurements do constrain certain Planck-scale models, but a true test of whether or not we understand early-universe physics is likely to necessitate creating a few Big Bangs ourselves. Doing so, with known technology, seems impossible. If it were possible, doing so would seem fraught with actual risk. (N.B. for the non-expert reader: there are cosmic rays that strike the Sun at least once every five minutes (and Earth, at least once a month) with energies 10,000,000 times greater than anything humans have ever achieved. Those collisions, over the last 4,500,000,000 years, have not yet resulted in the disruption of spacetime or the formation of a black hole. You are very, very, very safe from physicists breaking the universe as you know it. :).) Edit to add: You, mseepgood, aren't alone in your desire for knowledge. One Stephen Hawking once stated, “My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.”

xxpor 6y ago

120 years ago, we had no model of the atom, no quantum theory, no relativity, and only the first hints of figuring out radioactivity. Yet we were able to split the atom in 1942, create the MOSFET in 1959, and started launching the first GPS satellites in 1978. It's hard to express how much progress we've made in such a small amount of time relative to the rest of history. It's a god damn miracle.

Iwan-Zotow 6y ago
screwed up half of biosphere as well...

sto_hristo 6y ago

It's theories galore out there that aim to describe everything. Proving them right/wrong via experiments is the hard part.