3 ms·
Sorry for being harsh but that is completely, objectively, wrong. Physics is not "dealing with" explanation, observation, prediction in some fluid way. It is t
by plaguepilled 4y ago
Sorry for being harsh but that is completely, objectively, wrong.
Physics is not "dealing with" explanation, observation, prediction in some fluid way. It is the minimal model that correctly and succinctly predicts phenomena with sufficient statistical evidence.
There's no role to question whether phenomena is involved.
This is why SUSY is not part of the standard model - because it has not yet been confirmed with sufficient experimental data.
- meltyness 4y ago>... the minimal model... That's impossible if "the grand explanation" is to be mathematical, due to the same issue that felled pure math, Godel. There's assumptive folds throughout, like the correspondence principles, or complementary where arguing that we're even close to a complete explanation is madness. THOSE are all clearly labeled. All this to argue that yes, this is a novel demonstration, and (if I understand correctly) , shows that matter at some known scales are subject to dynamics elucidated by GR, up to exotic event spaces.
- plaguepilled 4y agoThe model being incomplete is not the same thing as saying empiricism is the primary requirement. The use of assumptions, similarly, does not sit before evidence fit. When we find results that contradict a theory with evidence, we often throw away the assumptions because we realise them as tools no longer fit for the job.
- meltyness 4y agoThe assumptions I'm discussing are the permissive types which serve as a trapdoor for good explanations, those don't get thrown out. Unsupported assumptions, like substructure where none had been observed, aren't thrown out until evidence contradicts them. For example in the case of the ether. Or in the case of strings, as yet untested.
- plaguepilled 4y agoThey still only get credence as long as they don't disagree with experiment.