4 ms·
I don't see that there's anything wrong with that approach. Sometimes progress is a slow and steady refining of existing models, sometimes it is wild new perspe
by AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
I don't see that there's anything wrong with that approach. Sometimes progress is a slow and steady refining of existing models, sometimes it is wild new perspectives that come out of left field and change everything.
And generally speaking we have good reason to believe the universe operates on a simplistic rule set that evolves in complex ways because finding a simple equation at the heart of complex interactions is pretty much the history of physics.
- adastra22 4y agoIn physics the explanations that come out of left field explain experimental results though. It is never the case, as far as I can think of, that an out of the blue theory developed for no reason other than mathematical “beauty” ends up overturning the old order.
- DemocracyFTW2 4y ago> It is never the case [...] that an out of the blue theory developed for no reason other than mathematical “beauty” ends up overturning the old order Well, Paul Dirac for one did predict the antimatter counterpart of the electron because of mathematical beauty, didn't he?
- adastra22 4y agoNo he created a framework for explaining the behavior of quantum systems moving at relativistic speeds, which was already being observed to diverge from theory in the measurement of cosmic rays. His equation implied the existence of antimatter, which was then looked for and found, but that was more of a happy accident.