3 ms·

>> At the moment it is deeply dissatisfying that our theories describe the universe that is accessible to our experiments so well. That should be very satisfyi

>> At the moment it is deeply dissatisfying that our theories describe the universe that is accessible to our experiments so well. That should be very satisfying.

darkwater 3y ago
The dissatisfying part comes probably from the fact that our technology will be limited to more or less what we already have, if there are no experimental breakthroughs that prove theories as inadequate.
marcosdumay 3y ago
Yeah, that would be the case if the theories taken together made sense, and if the Universe wasn't full of unexplained things that should fit what we observe at the experiments.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sidlls 3y ago
It's satisfying to (continue to) verify existing theory. If we perform an experiment which may shed light on the gaps and flaws in our current models and it simply confirms them, it's unsatisfying. We know our current models in physics are incomplete. But we are struggling mightily to bridge models in different domains (relativity/quantum mechanics) and to fill in gaps within domains (as here, in quantum mechanics). And if we can't make progress, i.e., if our experiments aren't helping us fix the gaps, it's disappointing.
- phkahler 3y ago
  I think the gaps in theory need to be addressed first. A theory that correctly bridges the gap should also shed light on why the situation today is this way. What if QM and relativity are both correct in the context we view them? What if higher energy isn't what's needed to reconcile them? Einstein "simply" took the observation that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, and relativity followed from that. Granted, he had to throw out the idea that time is constant. So what assumption might we take for granted that needs to be thrown out? Or more specifically what is the core set of things that conflict between QM and relativity? I'm asking for something far more specific that "QM and relativity can't both be right". It's in details that are probably way beyond my understanding.
CuriouslyC 3y ago
Not so much, we could unleash an AI on all our physics data and probably get similarly accurate models with similar complexity while being formulated quite differently. People would laugh at the idea that those models "were" reality, but physicists love to pretend that the human generated models "are" reality.

>> At the moment it is deeply dissatisfying that our theories describe the universe that is accessible to our experiments so well. That should be very satisfying.

darkwater 3y ago

The dissatisfying part comes probably from the fact that our technology will be limited to more or less what we already have, if there are no experimental breakthroughs that prove theories as inadequate.

marcosdumay 3y ago

Yeah, that would be the case if the theories taken together made sense, and if the Universe wasn't full of unexplained things that should fit what we observe at the experiments.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sidlls 3y ago

It's satisfying to (continue to) verify existing theory. If we perform an experiment which may shed light on the gaps and flaws in our current models and it simply confirms them, it's unsatisfying. We know our current models in physics are incomplete. But we are struggling mightily to bridge models in different domains (relativity/quantum mechanics) and to fill in gaps within domains (as here, in quantum mechanics). And if we can't make progress, i.e., if our experiments aren't helping us fix the gaps, it's disappointing.

phkahler 3y ago
I think the gaps in theory need to be addressed first. A theory that correctly bridges the gap should also shed light on why the situation today is this way. What if QM and relativity are both correct in the context we view them? What if higher energy isn't what's needed to reconcile them? Einstein "simply" took the observation that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, and relativity followed from that. Granted, he had to throw out the idea that time is constant. So what assumption might we take for granted that needs to be thrown out? Or more specifically what is the core set of things that conflict between QM and relativity? I'm asking for something far more specific that "QM and relativity can't both be right". It's in details that are probably way beyond my understanding.

CuriouslyC 3y ago

Not so much, we could unleash an AI on all our physics data and probably get similarly accurate models with similar complexity while being formulated quite differently. People would laugh at the idea that those models "were" reality, but physicists love to pretend that the human generated models "are" reality.