8 ms·

To some extent, observation has taken a back seat because we're at the point in our physics journey where we pontificate about things that are too small or too

To some extent, observation has taken a back seat because we're at the point in our physics journey where we pontificate about things that are too small or too dark and far away to see. We simply can't observe this stuff anymore.

LeifCarrotson 2y ago
Furthermore, we might not be able to observe it but we can observe simulations of it. If it was not possible to simulate, I think we'd be less invested in the math and physics of it.
- TheRealPomax 2y ago
  Furthermore, even if you can write down the math, it might not even be solvable (sometimes provably so) and simulations (or more accurately, numerical analysis and the finite element method) are our only option.
- dizzant 2y ago
  This is an interesting take, the article touches on it too. > “Physicists are much less concerned than mathematicians about rigorous proofs,” says Timothy Gowers, a mathematician at the Collège de France and a Fields Medal winner. Sometimes, he says, that “allows physicists to explore mathematical terrain more quickly than mathematicians.” GP is right that the currently observed physical laws go far beyond our ability to observe them in reality because of the cost of observations. International effort over decades is required to create facilities capable of making helpful new observations: think of LHC, LIGO, James Webb, etc. On the other hand, once the facilities are built and ground-breaking observations appear, we suddenly have a debt of theoretical and simulated exploration to understand all their implications. The low cost of computation greatly extends the value we can take from every truly new observation of reality. In order to observe something new, we must be able differentiate it from something already understood. It seems like the physics and math communities are currently in a season of increasing our understanding of the existing models well enough to motivate trying to break them.
glitchc 2y ago
Like the atom was in the 18th century? Electrons and protons in the 19th? Quarks in the 20th?
- l33t7332273 2y ago
  I’m struggling to see your point. My interpretation is that in each of those times, we used some math to talk about things we couldn’t observe until we were able to make experiments to observe them. Are you saying that one day we will be able to devise experiments to observe these things?
  - elashri 2y ago
    > Are you saying that one day we will be able to devise experiments to observe these things? The problem is that we might be on an exponential scale. So instead of decades it could be centuries assuming the humanity survives and keep develop new technologies and tools.
  - glitchc 2y ago
    Short answer: Yes, and new instruments to make those measurements possible. That's how physics has always progressed. Why would this point in time be suddenly different from the past 400 years? Because we can't see a clear path forward? That's always been the case. Insight and ingenuity of individuals is what gets us through it every time.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      > Why would this point in time be suddenly different from the past 400 years? Back in the late 1800s physicists thought they were done, other than adding a few more decimals to the values of fundamental constants. There were a few "small areas" where things didn't make sense, but they "would figure them out". One of those small areas turned out to be relativity, and the other quantum mechanics. There are some known areas where we still don't know what is going on, but a lot of physics is adding more decimals to constants (finding fundamental particles were we expect them for example) The real question - that we cannot answer - are the things we don't understand small things we will figure out, or major things that will again turn our understanding of the universe upside down. Your guess is as good as mine.
janalsncm 2y ago
I don’t agree with this. I think there are definitely people like Michio Kaku who have books to sell who spend their time pontificating. People just think that physics looks like pontificating because that’s what it looks like on TV. But there are also active researchers doing real research. Physics postdocs aren’t just sitting around in a circle making up stories about what the universe is like.
- alickz 2y ago
  please forgive my ignorance, has there been notable progress in the field of physics in the last decade? noteworthy breakthroughs i mean i ask out of layman curiosity
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    No worries. I’m (mostly) a layman too, I just happened to have watched this video recently: https://youtu.be/d_o4k0eLoMI https://youtu.be/d_o4k0eLoMI Maybe a more direct answer to your question would be the discovery of the tetraneutron.
  - Misdicorl 2y ago
    The past decade is a difficult framing to ask the question in. Notable breakthrough results are usually understood in hindsight and a decade just isn't a lot of time for that context and understanding to develop. Science also doesn't necessarily develop in this way with consistent progress every X timespan. Usually you get lots and lots of breakthroughs all at once as an important paradigm is shattered and a new one is installed. Then observations with tiny differences slowly pile up and a very blurry/messy picture of the problems with the new paradigm takes shape. But none of those things feels like a breakthrough, especially to a layman. That said: I'll submit the first detection of gravitational waves as two black holes merged together in 2020 as meeting the bar of "notable breakthrough in the last decade".
    - ricksunny 2y ago
      >first detection of gravitational waves as two black holes merged together in 2020 a 2015. (Your point is otherwise taken). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitati...
dxbydt 2y ago
> pontificate about things that are too small or too dark and far away to see I was bitten by this last week. I am enrolled in an aops physics course, titled Mechanics. So the last time I took any Mechanics was 40 years ago as a high school student in India. Most of the curriculum then was about stuff banging into each other aka collisions, & asking what happens to the result. Like some golf ball rolls down an inclined plane at some angle theta & hits a identical stationary ball & the objects stick together & we're supposed to compute where they end up. I was curious what American students learn, so I enrolled in this aops course. Last week's assignment asks me - under which scenario will conservation of momentum make an accurate prediction. The 3 scenarios are - truck collides with car, eagle comes to rest at perch after flying from far away, and two galaxies colliding into each other to form a third megagalaxy. I naturally picked truck & car - so aops knocks off 2 points for the wrong answer! Apparently if a truck collides with a car there will be so much thermal energy produced by the friction of the road, any prediction you make about the final velocity of the car assuming conservation of momentum will be bogus. So then I pick eagle coming to rest - aops knocks off 2 more points for the wrong answer! Apparently when eagle comes to land, it will open its giant wings to create air resistance, so momentum won't be conserved. Ok so that leaves the 2 galaxies. I pick that & get my correct answer, a pathetic score of 3/7. I'm left wondering how do we even know this is correct. Galaxies are too far away to observe. How is one supposed to compute the mass of 2 separate galaxies, & then find their moving velocities accurately, & then find the final velocity of the combined galaxy, & thus confirm momentum was conserved ? Seems very far fetched. I would rather go with the car & truck.
- lilyball 2y ago
  With the car & truck, and with the eagle, a lot of energy is lost into the environment. With two galaxies colliding, there is no environment to speak of. They're in space, and space is as close to a perfect vacuum as one might reasonably imagine. So the only real escape for energy is light, but I don't think there's any reason to believe colliding galaxies will produce absurd amounts of excess light (if it did we'd have observed it). Therefore the energy of the collision is preserved within the system, and so conservation of momentum will produce an accurate prediction.
DarkNova6 2y ago
You still have to do experiments and verify that what you did has ground.

LeifCarrotson 2y ago

Furthermore, we might not be able to observe it but we can observe simulations of it. If it was not possible to simulate, I think we'd be less invested in the math and physics of it.

TheRealPomax 2y ago
Furthermore, even if you can write down the math, it might not even be solvable (sometimes provably so) and simulations (or more accurately, numerical analysis and the finite element method) are our only option.
dizzant 2y ago
This is an interesting take, the article touches on it too. > “Physicists are much less concerned than mathematicians about rigorous proofs,” says Timothy Gowers, a mathematician at the Collège de France and a Fields Medal winner. Sometimes, he says, that “allows physicists to explore mathematical terrain more quickly than mathematicians.” GP is right that the currently observed physical laws go far beyond our ability to observe them in reality because of the cost of observations. International effort over decades is required to create facilities capable of making helpful new observations: think of LHC, LIGO, James Webb, etc. On the other hand, once the facilities are built and ground-breaking observations appear, we suddenly have a debt of theoretical and simulated exploration to understand all their implications. The low cost of computation greatly extends the value we can take from every truly new observation of reality. In order to observe something new, we must be able differentiate it from something already understood. It seems like the physics and math communities are currently in a season of increasing our understanding of the existing models well enough to motivate trying to break them.

glitchc 2y ago

Like the atom was in the 18th century? Electrons and protons in the 19th? Quarks in the 20th?

l33t7332273 2y ago
I’m struggling to see your point. My interpretation is that in each of those times, we used some math to talk about things we couldn’t observe until we were able to make experiments to observe them. Are you saying that one day we will be able to devise experiments to observe these things?
- elashri 2y ago
  > Are you saying that one day we will be able to devise experiments to observe these things? The problem is that we might be on an exponential scale. So instead of decades it could be centuries assuming the humanity survives and keep develop new technologies and tools.
- glitchc 2y ago
  Short answer: Yes, and new instruments to make those measurements possible. That's how physics has always progressed. Why would this point in time be suddenly different from the past 400 years? Because we can't see a clear path forward? That's always been the case. Insight and ingenuity of individuals is what gets us through it every time.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    > Why would this point in time be suddenly different from the past 400 years? Back in the late 1800s physicists thought they were done, other than adding a few more decimals to the values of fundamental constants. There were a few "small areas" where things didn't make sense, but they "would figure them out". One of those small areas turned out to be relativity, and the other quantum mechanics. There are some known areas where we still don't know what is going on, but a lot of physics is adding more decimals to constants (finding fundamental particles were we expect them for example) The real question - that we cannot answer - are the things we don't understand small things we will figure out, or major things that will again turn our understanding of the universe upside down. Your guess is as good as mine.

janalsncm 2y ago

I don’t agree with this. I think there are definitely people like Michio Kaku who have books to sell who spend their time pontificating. People just think that physics looks like pontificating because that’s what it looks like on TV. But there are also active researchers doing real research. Physics postdocs aren’t just sitting around in a circle making up stories about what the universe is like.

alickz 2y ago
please forgive my ignorance, has there been notable progress in the field of physics in the last decade? noteworthy breakthroughs i mean i ask out of layman curiosity
- janalsncm 2y ago
  No worries. I’m (mostly) a layman too, I just happened to have watched this video recently: https://youtu.be/d_o4k0eLoMI https://youtu.be/d_o4k0eLoMI Maybe a more direct answer to your question would be the discovery of the tetraneutron.
- Misdicorl 2y ago
  The past decade is a difficult framing to ask the question in. Notable breakthrough results are usually understood in hindsight and a decade just isn't a lot of time for that context and understanding to develop. Science also doesn't necessarily develop in this way with consistent progress every X timespan. Usually you get lots and lots of breakthroughs all at once as an important paradigm is shattered and a new one is installed. Then observations with tiny differences slowly pile up and a very blurry/messy picture of the problems with the new paradigm takes shape. But none of those things feels like a breakthrough, especially to a layman. That said: I'll submit the first detection of gravitational waves as two black holes merged together in 2020 as meeting the bar of "notable breakthrough in the last decade".
  - ricksunny 2y ago
    >first detection of gravitational waves as two black holes merged together in 2020 a 2015. (Your point is otherwise taken). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitati...

dxbydt 2y ago

> pontificate about things that are too small or too dark and far away to see I was bitten by this last week. I am enrolled in an aops physics course, titled Mechanics. So the last time I took any Mechanics was 40 years ago as a high school student in India. Most of the curriculum then was about stuff banging into each other aka collisions, & asking what happens to the result. Like some golf ball rolls down an inclined plane at some angle theta & hits a identical stationary ball & the objects stick together & we're supposed to compute where they end up. I was curious what American students learn, so I enrolled in this aops course. Last week's assignment asks me - under which scenario will conservation of momentum make an accurate prediction. The 3 scenarios are - truck collides with car, eagle comes to rest at perch after flying from far away, and two galaxies colliding into each other to form a third megagalaxy. I naturally picked truck & car - so aops knocks off 2 points for the wrong answer! Apparently if a truck collides with a car there will be so much thermal energy produced by the friction of the road, any prediction you make about the final velocity of the car assuming conservation of momentum will be bogus. So then I pick eagle coming to rest - aops knocks off 2 more points for the wrong answer! Apparently when eagle comes to land, it will open its giant wings to create air resistance, so momentum won't be conserved. Ok so that leaves the 2 galaxies. I pick that & get my correct answer, a pathetic score of 3/7. I'm left wondering how do we even know this is correct. Galaxies are too far away to observe. How is one supposed to compute the mass of 2 separate galaxies, & then find their moving velocities accurately, & then find the final velocity of the combined galaxy, & thus confirm momentum was conserved ? Seems very far fetched. I would rather go with the car & truck.

lilyball 2y ago
With the car & truck, and with the eagle, a lot of energy is lost into the environment. With two galaxies colliding, there is no environment to speak of. They're in space, and space is as close to a perfect vacuum as one might reasonably imagine. So the only real escape for energy is light, but I don't think there's any reason to believe colliding galaxies will produce absurd amounts of excess light (if it did we'd have observed it). Therefore the energy of the collision is preserved within the system, and so conservation of momentum will produce an accurate prediction.

DarkNova6 2y ago

You still have to do experiments and verify that what you did has ground.