5 ms·
I have personally no problems with epicycles. Those were effectively the Fourier decompositions of the elliptical orbits while viewed from the Earth. At some
by sega_sai 4y ago
I have personally no problems with epicycles. Those were effectively the Fourier decompositions of the elliptical orbits while viewed from the Earth. At some point we found a simpler and a more predictive theory and that naturally produces the right shapes (kepler laws + classical gravitational dynamics) and we choose that instead.
I think many people would be happy (myself included) if there is theory that wouldn't require dark matter and dark energy. But at the moment there is none and to me (and many astrophysicsts) the universe with dark matter is the best description we've found so far of what we observe.
- replygirl 4y agofrom the angle of "explaining observations" a fundamentally incorrect theory can work well. but it breaks down as soon as you interact with the object of the theory in new ways. in epicycles' case that means traveling to a satellite that doesn't orbit the earth. usually the theory is disproven before it kills people, but you know, possibility's there
- DubiousPusher 4y agoI think the OP's point is that we should understand our current models of natural phenomenon to be just that, models. Outside of their predictive capabilities we should remain humble about how much "truth" they contain and be skeptical of their ability to tell us what's "really going on". Kepler and Newton's models produce better predictions over a long period than Ptolemaic models, which is great. But it's a bit of delusion to think that necessarily means they are analogous to the cosmological mechanisms that produce orbital mechanics.
- replygirl 4y ago> I think the OP's point is that we should understand our current models of natural phenomenon to be just that, models this was my point with the initial epicycle comparison
- sega_sai 4y agoI don't believe in fundamentally correct theories. All theories have limitations. They work until they do not. Is general relativity fundamentally correct ? I wouldn't call it that (others may disagree), because it doesn't explain quantum effects or very early universe. So to me theories are just tools that explain what we see and predict the future.
- replygirl 4y agoexactly, so when we attempt to put general relativity into practice at the limit of its predictive capability, we may see something is very wrong, then extrapolate a better model, and a few decades later everyone will look back on general relativity as an example of science's ability to carry us away from grossly false beliefs. as with epicycles. and maybe dark matter.
- horsawlarway 4y agoI'm with you - "All models are wrong, but some models are useful". I do think dark matter is tantalizing because it hints strongly that our model needs a fundamental change in understanding at some other level. It just feels like too much wall paper to be adding to the model in an attempt to cover the holes. Doesn't mean I find any of the current alternatives more viable then our current models.
- Koshkin 4y agoTheories, sure, but knowledge is not confined to theories, i.e. isn’t there positive knowledge, a.k.a. “facts”?
- sega_sai 4y agoYes there are facts. I.e. there is a particle called electron, there is a Sun, Cosmic Microwave background, Milky Way galaxy. I'd say those are facts. But I do think the boundary what's a 'fact' vs model/theory dependent statement can be different among different people.
- myrryr 4y agoThere are theories with super high levels of supporting evidence, so we treat them as true. This isn't to say that is a bad thing, it is a great thing.