5 ms·
Why are we even trying to look deeper? To fit our mathematical curves better? Abstract spacetime, fields, virtual particles, wave function collapse, quantized e
by albatross79 8mo ago
Why are we even trying to look deeper? To fit our mathematical curves better? Abstract spacetime, fields, virtual particles, wave function collapse, quantized energy, wave particle duality, etc. This is all BS. And I'm not disputing the theories or the experimental results. These concepts are unintelligible. They are self contradictory. They are not even abstractions, they are mutually exclusive paradigms forced together into a bewilderment. I'm not disputing that the math fits the observations. But these are not explanations. If this is what it's come to, all we can expect from here on is to better fit the math to the observation. And in the end, an equation that tells us nothing about what we really wanted to know, like "what is it really"? Nobody is going to be satisfied with an equation, so why are we still funding this enterprise, for better lasers to kill bad guys?
- drdeca 8mo agoThe universe is not obligated to appeal to your aesthetic tastes in its innermost functioning. Maybe you aren’t going to be satisfied with the sort of complicated mathematics which appears to be correct (or, on the right track). If you have complaints about the aesthetics of how the universe works, take it up with God. Personally, I think there is a lot of beauty to be found in it. I’ll admit that there are a few parts that go against my tastes (I don’t like needing to resort to distributions instead of proper functions), but that’s probably just intellectual laziness on my part.
- squeefers 8mo ago> The universe is not obligated to appeal to your aesthetic tastes in its innermost functioning. This is truly a copout. When science faulters in explaining the world we get answers like this. His argument isnt with the universe, but with out own scientific theories. If you dont want your theories about the physical world to explain physical world, then be an engineer. Science explains the world, engineers use those theories. QM has large gaps and doesnt actually explain much, but I guess the universe doesnt care whether our theories are wildly off the mark or not.
- albatross79 8mo agoIt's not a matter of taste. This is like going to a restaurant, expecting a delicious meal, and being brought a dish with a fancy name made out of the actual menu itself. Would anyone go back there to eat?
- WantonQuantum 8mo agoI find quite a lot of it very satisfying. For example, the deep mathematical symmetries of gauge theory and how they relate to the observed forces of the universe is truly amazing. The excellent Arvin Ash has a very accessible video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paQLJKtiAEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paQLJKtiAEE
- squeefers 8mo agomaybe thats the problem. satisfaction isnt understanding. string theory is exciting maths, but fits nothing in reality. maybe scientists should go back to explaining reality instead of whatever this current paradigm is
- drdeca 8mo agoYour conception of an “explanation of reality” is deeply flawed.
- squeefers 8mo agoyou can correctly predict reality whilst having absolutely know idea how it works (ie the path of a photon in the double slit experiment).
- drdeca 8mo agoSometimes nature tells us that the questions we are inclined to ask, are flawed questions. The “What path did the photon take?” question is one of those times. The answer to the question is Mu. Similar to the questions “How much phlogiston is there in iron?” or “Does sulphur have more earth than air, or more air than earth?”.
- albatross79 8mo agoBut the question is "what is the universe made of?", and the answer given is "mathematical abstractions that fit the data".