4 ms·

> The thing is, we are wrong, but this stuff is useful to make predictions I understand where you're coming from but this is a very cynical take. String theory

> The thing is, we are wrong, but this stuff is useful to make predictions I understand where you're coming from but this is a very cynical take. String theory is a strawman compared to the empirical "discoveries" of items like black holes or the Higgs boson.

jambalaya8 2mo ago
Aye, but we only sorta kinda "know" what things like black holes might be. We have models that make sense to us based on our understanding of science, and we think our instruments can faithfully report on what they can be with measurements we believe we are making correctly, but we have no clue what we don't know, and no real way to prove it, just theorize, and sort of bundle up what we believe is data supporting it.
- blooalien 2mo ago
  "The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know." — Aristotle
  - shusaku 2mo ago
    The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know to whom you should ascribe a quote.
    - blooalien 2mo ago
      @shusaku> "The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know to whom you should ascribe a quote." Well, so far I see variants of this particular quote from Aristotle, Einstein, and Voltaire. Someone else probably said it earlier than any of 'em probably, but I honestly don't care enough to dig any deeper than this. Besides, half the time I've dug deeper into Mark Twain or Albert Einstein quotes (just for a couple really common examples) I find that they're attributed with saying a thing they never actually said anyhow, so... :shrug: https://motivane.com/quote/more-you-know-more-you-dont-know/ https://motivane.com/quote/more-you-know-more-you-dont-know/ https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/620163-the-more-i-learn-the-more-i-realize-how-much https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/620163-the-more-i-learn-the... https://wiseopinions.substack.com/p/voltaires-paradox-about-knowledge https://wiseopinions.substack.com/p/voltaires-paradox-about-...
  - odyssey7 2mo ago
    Could have learned a thing from Socrates.
    - BobbyTables2 2mo ago
      and Donald Rumsfeld (;->
- jeremyjh 2mo ago
  There are so many observations that fit the theory at this point, that we know there is a supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy just as well as we knew the earth orbited the sun before the voyager flight.
  - oersted 2mo ago
    Well, it seems that the question still remains somewhat open. There are theories that fit the data as well or better than the black-hole model. My naive intuition is that this is mostly just physicist publishing papers and throwing some exotic ideas out (we still don't know enough about dark matter), and that the black-hole model will remain as the consensus. But it's not as unquestionable as you say it is. > An alternative to the black hole (BH) scenario has been recently proposed in terms of a supermassive compact object composed of self-gravitating fermionic dark matter (DM). https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/546/1/staf1854/8431112 https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/546/1/staf1854/843111... > Sagittarius A* Might Not Be a Black Hole https://youtu.be/7tRww03EKlk?si=0XcJ1yw-gPj1IzQW https://youtu.be/7tRww03EKlk?si=0XcJ1yw-gPj1IzQW
    - jambalaya8 2mo ago
      I am one of those people that feel that dark matter is not something humans should be studying too much. Just like hadrons, wormholes, and those people interested in creating lab-based little black holes. It strikes me as naive and dangerous to assume all physics is meant to be studied. Just because we know splitting atoms can make really big explosions, for instance, doesn't mean it might not have had other effects on the fabric of the universe we lack the mental facilities, advanced knowledge, or context to fathom.
  - jambalaya8 2mo ago
    Still remembering how many people bought into m-branes and p-branes.
    - jeremyjh 2mo ago
      Black holes are simply a consequence of GR, which has made more successful predictions than just about any physical theory. Did M-branes make any successful predictions?
- mmooss 2mo ago
  > we have no clue what we don't know We have very good ideas about it, including the issue described in the OP. We also don't know how gravity and the other forces work together. We don't know where other life is in the universe. We don't know how to travel to other stars. We don't know what is under the surface of Europa (but we'll soon find out). And we have a very good idea of what we know because our theories, based on our observations, predict things accurately. The original upthread comment and followup seem like taking some philosophical questions to logical extremes.
gtowey 2mo ago
The thing is we have a lot of models which make very accurate predictions most of the time, which are useful for doing some impressive science. But we have no accepted theory of what is actually happening behind the math. What we have is that in 1925 most theoretical physicists decided that we have already uncovered the most fundamental structures of the universe and further investigation into how or why things are the way they are is fruitless. This view has dominated for the last 100 years. Physics has been focused only on modeling and testing, but nobody knows exactly what the models are telling us about the universe. I agree with the above poster that this is wrong and we may yet learn that our models are only very close to reality, but the actual mechanics are different. At least I think more research should be pointed in this direction.
- exmadscientist 2mo ago
  > in 1925 most theoretical physicists decided that we [are done] No. Just... no. Even advancing that fifty years to 1975, the Standard Model reigns not because people want it to reign, but because no one can knock it off its throne. There is no better idea that can explain more than the Standard Model can. It's not a conspiracy. (I did used to joke with my students that progress in physics stopped around 1975, which is around when LSD got banned, so there might well be a lack of ideas. But I'll leave that one to the reader!)
  - podocarp 2mo ago
    From my understanding of the parent I think he's not saying that nothing is trying to replace the standard model etc. But instead nobody is trying to explain the standard model (or whatever). For example, wavefunction collapse. You can see the wikipedia page for all its interpretations. There's no such page for Newtonian dynamics (even though gravity is also spooky action at a distance) and classical EM (you're telling me there's more of these fields everywhere I can't see). I think it's simply because classical experiments are a primary source and quantum experiments are a secondary source of information. The classical case you just see and know the result. Quantum experiments you're always looking at some medium that detects or measures or whatever the original interaction. So you're only interrogating the detector, not the original particles or interaction. So of course we're stuck with an interpretation problem. It's the same problem with news. The primary sources are always 100% certain what happened because they saw it. The secondary source will allow for more interpretation because they have heard from multiple primary sources, etc.
CuriouslyC 2mo ago
The Higgs and black holes are quite different. We've basically observed Higgs according to how we've defined them, while we've only observed phenomena consistent with black holes as we hypothesize them. Singularities are the result of theories based on (ironically named) real numbers, it's entirely possible that what we call black holes are really dark stars formed from exotic matter that can only exist in hyper-extreme conditions, like a leveled up neutron star.
- i_no_can_eat 2mo ago
  The difference is that we have theorerically sound formation scenarious for black holes under very broad conditions, and we have absolutely no model for a formation scenario of such an exotic dark star.
  - mr_toad 2mo ago
    Observations keep poking holes in those hypotheses (I’m not sure they even count as theories). We keep finding black holes with anomalous masses, or black holes that formed too early. Part of the problem is that we have very little observational data. But another big problem is that our best ideas, based on general relativity are known to be incompatible with quantum mechanics.
    - i_no_can_eat 2mo ago
      My comment was specifically about those alternative "dark stars" hypothesis. Is there one with a formation scenario?
      - CuriouslyC 2mo ago
        That's gated by a constructivist replacement for general relativity and a deeper understanding of heavy quarks. Science marches on.
ColdStream 2mo ago
I think it is similar to the 'All models are wrong but some are useful' adage. There is reality and there is the math at which we point at it with. The pointing will never be reality but that doesn't mean it is useless. In the same way you cannot blow the wind with the word 'Fan'. But the concept of a fan is very useful.

jambalaya8 2mo ago

Aye, but we only sorta kinda "know" what things like black holes might be. We have models that make sense to us based on our understanding of science, and we think our instruments can faithfully report on what they can be with measurements we believe we are making correctly, but we have no clue what we don't know, and no real way to prove it, just theorize, and sort of bundle up what we believe is data supporting it.

blooalien 2mo ago
"The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know." — Aristotle
- shusaku 2mo ago
  The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know to whom you should ascribe a quote.
  - blooalien 2mo ago
    @shusaku> "The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know to whom you should ascribe a quote." Well, so far I see variants of this particular quote from Aristotle, Einstein, and Voltaire. Someone else probably said it earlier than any of 'em probably, but I honestly don't care enough to dig any deeper than this. Besides, half the time I've dug deeper into Mark Twain or Albert Einstein quotes (just for a couple really common examples) I find that they're attributed with saying a thing they never actually said anyhow, so... :shrug: https://motivane.com/quote/more-you-know-more-you-dont-know/ https://motivane.com/quote/more-you-know-more-you-dont-know/ https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/620163-the-more-i-learn-the-more-i-realize-how-much https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/620163-the-more-i-learn-the... https://wiseopinions.substack.com/p/voltaires-paradox-about-knowledge https://wiseopinions.substack.com/p/voltaires-paradox-about-...
- odyssey7 2mo ago
  Could have learned a thing from Socrates.
  - BobbyTables2 2mo ago
    and Donald Rumsfeld (;->
jeremyjh 2mo ago
There are so many observations that fit the theory at this point, that we know there is a supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy just as well as we knew the earth orbited the sun before the voyager flight.
- oersted 2mo ago
  Well, it seems that the question still remains somewhat open. There are theories that fit the data as well or better than the black-hole model. My naive intuition is that this is mostly just physicist publishing papers and throwing some exotic ideas out (we still don't know enough about dark matter), and that the black-hole model will remain as the consensus. But it's not as unquestionable as you say it is. > An alternative to the black hole (BH) scenario has been recently proposed in terms of a supermassive compact object composed of self-gravitating fermionic dark matter (DM). https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/546/1/staf1854/8431112 https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/546/1/staf1854/843111... > Sagittarius A* Might Not Be a Black Hole https://youtu.be/7tRww03EKlk?si=0XcJ1yw-gPj1IzQW https://youtu.be/7tRww03EKlk?si=0XcJ1yw-gPj1IzQW
  - jambalaya8 2mo ago
    I am one of those people that feel that dark matter is not something humans should be studying too much. Just like hadrons, wormholes, and those people interested in creating lab-based little black holes. It strikes me as naive and dangerous to assume all physics is meant to be studied. Just because we know splitting atoms can make really big explosions, for instance, doesn't mean it might not have had other effects on the fabric of the universe we lack the mental facilities, advanced knowledge, or context to fathom.
- jambalaya8 2mo ago
  Still remembering how many people bought into m-branes and p-branes.
  - jeremyjh 2mo ago
    Black holes are simply a consequence of GR, which has made more successful predictions than just about any physical theory. Did M-branes make any successful predictions?
mmooss 2mo ago
> we have no clue what we don't know We have very good ideas about it, including the issue described in the OP. We also don't know how gravity and the other forces work together. We don't know where other life is in the universe. We don't know how to travel to other stars. We don't know what is under the surface of Europa (but we'll soon find out). And we have a very good idea of what we know because our theories, based on our observations, predict things accurately. The original upthread comment and followup seem like taking some philosophical questions to logical extremes.

gtowey 2mo ago

The thing is we have a lot of models which make very accurate predictions most of the time, which are useful for doing some impressive science. But we have no accepted theory of what is actually happening behind the math. What we have is that in 1925 most theoretical physicists decided that we have already uncovered the most fundamental structures of the universe and further investigation into how or why things are the way they are is fruitless. This view has dominated for the last 100 years. Physics has been focused only on modeling and testing, but nobody knows exactly what the models are telling us about the universe. I agree with the above poster that this is wrong and we may yet learn that our models are only very close to reality, but the actual mechanics are different. At least I think more research should be pointed in this direction.

exmadscientist 2mo ago
> in 1925 most theoretical physicists decided that we [are done] No. Just... no. Even advancing that fifty years to 1975, the Standard Model reigns not because people want it to reign, but because no one can knock it off its throne. There is no better idea that can explain more than the Standard Model can. It's not a conspiracy. (I did used to joke with my students that progress in physics stopped around 1975, which is around when LSD got banned, so there might well be a lack of ideas. But I'll leave that one to the reader!)
- podocarp 2mo ago
  From my understanding of the parent I think he's not saying that nothing is trying to replace the standard model etc. But instead nobody is trying to explain the standard model (or whatever). For example, wavefunction collapse. You can see the wikipedia page for all its interpretations. There's no such page for Newtonian dynamics (even though gravity is also spooky action at a distance) and classical EM (you're telling me there's more of these fields everywhere I can't see). I think it's simply because classical experiments are a primary source and quantum experiments are a secondary source of information. The classical case you just see and know the result. Quantum experiments you're always looking at some medium that detects or measures or whatever the original interaction. So you're only interrogating the detector, not the original particles or interaction. So of course we're stuck with an interpretation problem. It's the same problem with news. The primary sources are always 100% certain what happened because they saw it. The secondary source will allow for more interpretation because they have heard from multiple primary sources, etc.

CuriouslyC 2mo ago

The Higgs and black holes are quite different. We've basically observed Higgs according to how we've defined them, while we've only observed phenomena consistent with black holes as we hypothesize them. Singularities are the result of theories based on (ironically named) real numbers, it's entirely possible that what we call black holes are really dark stars formed from exotic matter that can only exist in hyper-extreme conditions, like a leveled up neutron star.

i_no_can_eat 2mo ago
The difference is that we have theorerically sound formation scenarious for black holes under very broad conditions, and we have absolutely no model for a formation scenario of such an exotic dark star.
- mr_toad 2mo ago
  Observations keep poking holes in those hypotheses (I’m not sure they even count as theories). We keep finding black holes with anomalous masses, or black holes that formed too early. Part of the problem is that we have very little observational data. But another big problem is that our best ideas, based on general relativity are known to be incompatible with quantum mechanics.
  - i_no_can_eat 2mo ago
    My comment was specifically about those alternative "dark stars" hypothesis. Is there one with a formation scenario?
    - CuriouslyC 2mo ago
      That's gated by a constructivist replacement for general relativity and a deeper understanding of heavy quarks. Science marches on.

ColdStream 2mo ago

I think it is similar to the 'All models are wrong but some are useful' adage. There is reality and there is the math at which we point at it with. The pointing will never be reality but that doesn't mean it is useless. In the same way you cannot blow the wind with the word 'Fan'. But the concept of a fan is very useful.