5 ms·

It's quite inelegant, but physicists have eliminated most of the other sensible explanations. Remember, there's no law in the universe that us humans have to li

by eloff 12y ago

It's quite inelegant, but physicists have eliminated most of the other sensible explanations. Remember, there's no law in the universe that us humans have to like the underlying physical laws of the universe. Frankly it's amazing that they have as much elegance and mathematical beauty as they do.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
> Frankly it's amazing that they have as much elegance and mathematical beauty as they do. I'm not surprised; humans always keep searching for more elegant models. There seems to be something in the brain that associates positive emotion with models that compress information well.
- Sharlin 12y ago
  We're looking for accurate models. That they also happen to be elegant is surprising. No amount of searching for elegant-but-accurate models is going to help if the underlying reality is inelegant.
  - tim333 12y ago
    As demonstrated by the discipline of economics.
astrobe_ 12y ago
However, using an heliocentric reference to describe the movement of planets is both much more "elegant" and "right" than an earth-centric reference. It suggests me that nature is relatively "simple", and that excessively complicated models are "wrong" or at least suspicious.
- jarin 12y ago
  It's also not completely accurate. The Sun is not the center of the planets' orbits, but it is one focus of their orbital ellipses. Also, using the Sun's reference frame is only an approximation due to forces from other stars, the galaxy, etc.
  - goldenkey 12y ago
    Unfortunately it's the best we have. Integrating gravitational waves for N-bodies is near impossible when N gets sufficiently large. Gotta have a threshold of importance to get any meaningful approximation.
- dm_throwaway 12y ago
  People spent centuries assuming that orbits (whether helio- or geo-centric) were circular, because it was more elegant. They were wrong!
  - astrobe_ 12y ago
    I don't think so. Assuming circular orbits is certainly more "almost right" than "wrong" to me. By the way, Copernicus' circular heliocentric model was refined a few decades (not centuries) later by Kepler with elliptic orbits.
JackFr 12y ago
Indeed there's no law in the universe that us humans have to be able to comprehend it. Just because you want to know doesn't mean you get to.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  'Understanding' means in some framework. Its inevitable we'll come to some understanding, even if its 'physics at its most fundamental level is simply probability distributions'.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  >Indeed there's no law in the universe that us humans have to be able to comprehend it. A mind completely incapable of dealing with the universe would have been selected against waaaaay back.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Yes, but a mind does not need to be completely incapable of dealing with the universe to be incapable of dealing with the universe completely. It is the latter, not the former, that is relevant here.

by eloff 12y ago

TeMPOraL 12y ago

> Frankly it's amazing that they have as much elegance and mathematical beauty as they do. I'm not surprised; humans always keep searching for more elegant models. There seems to be something in the brain that associates positive emotion with models that compress information well.

Sharlin 12y ago
We're looking for accurate models. That they also happen to be elegant is surprising. No amount of searching for elegant-but-accurate models is going to help if the underlying reality is inelegant.
- tim333 12y ago
  As demonstrated by the discipline of economics.

astrobe_ 12y ago

However, using an heliocentric reference to describe the movement of planets is both much more "elegant" and "right" than an earth-centric reference. It suggests me that nature is relatively "simple", and that excessively complicated models are "wrong" or at least suspicious.

jarin 12y ago
It's also not completely accurate. The Sun is not the center of the planets' orbits, but it is one focus of their orbital ellipses. Also, using the Sun's reference frame is only an approximation due to forces from other stars, the galaxy, etc.
- goldenkey 12y ago
  Unfortunately it's the best we have. Integrating gravitational waves for N-bodies is near impossible when N gets sufficiently large. Gotta have a threshold of importance to get any meaningful approximation.
dm_throwaway 12y ago
People spent centuries assuming that orbits (whether helio- or geo-centric) were circular, because it was more elegant. They were wrong!
- astrobe_ 12y ago
  I don't think so. Assuming circular orbits is certainly more "almost right" than "wrong" to me. By the way, Copernicus' circular heliocentric model was refined a few decades (not centuries) later by Kepler with elliptic orbits.

JackFr 12y ago

Indeed there's no law in the universe that us humans have to be able to comprehend it. Just because you want to know doesn't mean you get to.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
'Understanding' means in some framework. Its inevitable we'll come to some understanding, even if its 'physics at its most fundamental level is simply probability distributions'.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>Indeed there's no law in the universe that us humans have to be able to comprehend it. A mind completely incapable of dealing with the universe would have been selected against waaaaay back.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Yes, but a mind does not need to be completely incapable of dealing with the universe to be incapable of dealing with the universe completely. It is the latter, not the former, that is relevant here.