4 ms·

We developed highly accurate instruments that measure incredibly small and large things. Yet all of our scientific progress is biased, because we have evolved i

We developed highly accurate instruments that measure incredibly small and large things. Yet all of our scientific progress is biased, because we have evolved in a very specific environment that we handle well. Virtually all of our scientific measurements had been done in a relatively small time frame[1] and on one very specific planet with certain conditions [2]. I think it is way to early to call universe unnatural. Sure there is a chance that it might be true, but we are not going to find out until we have way more data. For one there is so much in cosmology that we cannot explain yet, such as dark matter and accelerating expansion. [1] Last 250 years or so. [2] Gravity, magnetic field, stable trajectory around the sun (sun's gravity is more or less unchanging)... I do know there are variations and experiments in microgravity, but all high-energy particle acceleration experiments had been done in relatively same conditions.

noobermin 12y ago
WRT HEP experiments, I'm hoping the developments in laser acceleration of charged particles leads to accelerator-like experiments being much cheaper and thus more easily doable for smaller groups and labs, it would at least increase the number of variations in conditions. But, you're right about scientists assuming a lot about the universe. In cosmology, this is known as the Cosmological Principle[0], which is expressed in the language of the field as homogeneity of the matter distribution of the universe. Implicit hypotheses with this is that fundamental constants are constant and the laws of physics are the same. The basic idea is the assumption that the Earth is not special, therefore, experiments done here, while accounting for particular effects like earth's gravity, being a non-inertial frame, etc., would be representative of any point other point of space. And it's not that this is a bad assumption. For example, spectra analysis of elements on earth has given us good ways to figure out the elements of stars far out of reach, and it is one hell of a coincidence that the spectra we see in stars is so similar to elements here like hydrogen and helium that one can't assume that earth was just gifted with these elements while other parts weren't. This is just one example of the success of this assumption. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
granfalloon 12y ago
"Yet all of our scientific progress is biased, because we have evolved in a very specific environment that we handle well." I often get discouraged thinking about this. Our entire body of scientific knowledge consists of inferences drawn from human observation, but our sensory apparatus is only sensitive to a few different things/processes. And the mental processes we apply to our observations evolved to simply help us survive our physical environment. We could be fatally under-equipped to ever come close to "understanding" the universe, right? Also, I'm WAY out of my depth here, but is it at least possible to imagine a system where there are multiple sets of elementary particles, with each set not interacting with the rest? I'm imagining an arbitrary number of sets of particles that are each identical in function to the particles comprising our physical world, but the states of the particles in Set 1 have no effect on the states of the particles in Set 2, and so on. The result could be many intertwined or overlaid physical universes, all occupying the same "space." Could something like this ever be disproved?
- TrainedMonkey 12y ago
  That is basically string theory^^

noobermin 12y ago

WRT HEP experiments, I'm hoping the developments in laser acceleration of charged particles leads to accelerator-like experiments being much cheaper and thus more easily doable for smaller groups and labs, it would at least increase the number of variations in conditions. But, you're right about scientists assuming a lot about the universe. In cosmology, this is known as the Cosmological Principle[0], which is expressed in the language of the field as homogeneity of the matter distribution of the universe. Implicit hypotheses with this is that fundamental constants are constant and the laws of physics are the same. The basic idea is the assumption that the Earth is not special, therefore, experiments done here, while accounting for particular effects like earth's gravity, being a non-inertial frame, etc., would be representative of any point other point of space. And it's not that this is a bad assumption. For example, spectra analysis of elements on earth has given us good ways to figure out the elements of stars far out of reach, and it is one hell of a coincidence that the spectra we see in stars is so similar to elements here like hydrogen and helium that one can't assume that earth was just gifted with these elements while other parts weren't. This is just one example of the success of this assumption. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

granfalloon 12y ago

"Yet all of our scientific progress is biased, because we have evolved in a very specific environment that we handle well." I often get discouraged thinking about this. Our entire body of scientific knowledge consists of inferences drawn from human observation, but our sensory apparatus is only sensitive to a few different things/processes. And the mental processes we apply to our observations evolved to simply help us survive our physical environment. We could be fatally under-equipped to ever come close to "understanding" the universe, right? Also, I'm WAY out of my depth here, but is it at least possible to imagine a system where there are multiple sets of elementary particles, with each set not interacting with the rest? I'm imagining an arbitrary number of sets of particles that are each identical in function to the particles comprising our physical world, but the states of the particles in Set 1 have no effect on the states of the particles in Set 2, and so on. The result could be many intertwined or overlaid physical universes, all occupying the same "space." Could something like this ever be disproved?

TrainedMonkey 12y ago
That is basically string theory^^