Are the Foundations of Physics Flawed or Just Limited?

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Does anyone ever have the feeling that the foundations of physics has flaws, that there really isn't four fundamental forces, but there is an easier way to explain it all, possibly extremely obvious, but everyone is too held back by math to see an easier way? Does it seem like the strong force and gravity are very similar? What about the weak force, doesn't that sort of seem like it was invented as a means to develop QCD? What if a neutron is a proton with an electron bound to it in a different configuration than in a hydrogen atom, almost as if it's a mini hydrogen atom? This can happen if the electron phase speed somehow could orbit the proton, maybe somehow the proton and the electron can intermingle to make a neutron in some resonant system, of course, they could break apart too in some way (without the need of the weak force to explain it). If GR were able to be used on the atomic scale, what if there is a point where time moves slow enough near a proton (due to the warping of space-time) so that virtual photons can't exist long enough to travel between protons and thus aren't able to mediate a repultion force between protons in the nucleus, and therefore no reason for a strong force, but it's just gravity that holds things together? What if there is only two forces, gravity and EM, and gravity also has a counterpart, anti-gravity (which feels like gravity between anti matter, but anti-matter repels matter), and then this would somehow eliminate the mysterious dark matter problem.

I'm just throwing seeds for others to start thinking of easier ways of explaining things, I don't think my ideas may help explain things better, but you get the idea, I'm just expressing my feeling that physics as we know it may have some things topsy turvey. Don't chase after me with the argument that "just because you don't understand QCD doesn't mean you can say it's wrong", I'm well aware of it, I just ask that you spend your time thinking of simpler ways that physics can exist rather than spend time thinking of how foolish i am. Use your imagination!

 

[Pengwuino]

Occam's razor does not apply to physics. We could make some very simplistic views (and no, physicists don't invent forces) on the world but that doesn't mean they are right. Add to this experiments that actually does show how a lot of this stuff is incorrect and things are very complex. Plus we need the mathematical backbone because we do realize everything must have a mathematical backbone. If one were to think force could equal 2ma... that would screw everything up. The derivative would not be 1/2mv^2 etc etc yet that is exactly what we consistently find in experiments. Unless we find a phenomenon that doesn't make sense mathematically... it's a sure bet to think that every phenomenon has to have a mathematical backbone.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm just throwing seeds for others to start thinking of easier ways of explaining things, I don't think my ideas may help explain things better, but you get the idea, I'm just expressing my feeling that physics as we know it may have some things topsy turvey.

Fortunately (or unfortunately), physics doesn't progress, nor gets verified, simply via "feelings". When you were young, you didn't "feel" as if touching that hot kettle would be a big deal. Now, hopefully, you know better.

Use your imagination!

But imagination without sufficient knowledge is just ignorance waiting to happen.

Zz.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Does that mean that you feel the foundations of physics doesn't have flaws?

sure the math works, and the ideas work too, but they could be wrong is all I'm saying.

 

[hellfire]

The foundations of physics work well, as we have very accurate theories to describe a very broad range of physical phenomena. May be different phenomena will force us in future to think about the fundamental laws in a very different way, but this reformulation must “reduce” to the current one in the corresponding domain of physical reality (low energies).

 

[ZapperZ]

Does that mean that you feel the foundations of physics doesn't have flaws?

There's a difference between "flaws" and "limited applicability".

The fact that IT WORKS should tell you something about the VALIDITY of that thing. No one in their right mind would say that Newton laws are "flawed" under terrestrial condition. That would be silly and one should run out of one's house or building if one believes that. Yet, we know when such laws are no longer applicable. But they are not flawed when applied when they should and do work.

If all of physics have infinite applicability and validity, physicists will be out of work, since by definition, a physicist works in areas of physics that either (i) are new (ii) have no currently accepted description (iii) violate current understanding (iv) or just plain puzzling. We do not work to duplicate things that we already know to be valid within known parameters.

Zz.