Are Some Physics Questions Just Impossible to Answer With Our Current Brains?

[Blenton]

I bet 95% of the people would still agree

Well heavier objects would have a greater gravitational force, thus a greater acceleration. So then shouldn't heavier objects fall faster?

 

[cronxeh]

Well heavier objects would have a greater gravitational force, thus a greater acceleration. So then shouldn't heavier objects fall faster?

Heavier force, yes. Acceleration, no.

Think of it this way. At the center of the Earth there is this strongman. He has a rope tied to a big object, and a small object, which are on the surface of Earth. He is pulling with the same rate on each object, but obviously the heavier object requires more effort, and the smaller object requires less effort.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well I certainly do not take a "who cares" attitude either to these questions. I still am not sure if I'd consider these questions philosophical questions per se though. Philosophy, to me, is stuff like what is good and evil? Do good and evil really exist or are they just constructs invented by humans? Saying, "What is the electromagnetic force?" well modern physics may be unable to answer that for all intents and purposes right now, except mathematically, but I do not see it as philosophy. The electromagnetic force is something real and tangible, just not in the normal physical sense in how we humans understand things. Same with light. But it's there.

There is a difference though.

If you have studied QED, and have dealt with the issue of field theory, etc., and then you ask "Gee, what really is an electromagnetic force beyond these description?", then I would be VERY interested in hearing what you have to say. Because if someone who has done all he/she can to understand it still have some leftover issues in trying to figure out what and why, then there's something to that.

But if all you had was an intro physics course, and then not only that, you THEN draw up the conclusion based on that level of understanding that the nature of electromagnetic force is just impossible to answer and beyond the capability of our minds, then I would dismiss that question immediately.

In the former, I don't have tell the questioner that he/she is missing a large portion of our current knowledge. In the latter, I have to not only counter the conclusion, but I may even have to spend a lot of time and effort teaching the basics first, something which that questioner should have put effort in before drawing up such conclusion. The propensity to simply draw up some conclusion without first figuring out if one has ample knowledge and information to even make an accurate conclusion is appalling.

Zz.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Nebula, this is just four pages of beating around the bush, avoiding the answer to your questions: "I don't know".

 

[ZapperZ]

Nebula, this is just four pages of beating around the bush, avoiding the answer to your questions: "I don't know".

Actually, we DO know.

For example, the question on light being "wave" or "particle" has been addressed in our FAQ. Matter and "energy" are the same ONLY if one cares about "energy accounting", and nothing else. That's like saying an apple and an orange is the same IF you only care about "fruits". And we do know about "electromagnetic force" because QED is one of the most successful theory with the highest accuracy when compared to experiment. QED has more certainty about EM fields that you know about yourself! And yes, there ARE more than 3 dimensions. There are at least 4 that we know of (3 space, and 1 time). And related to this, if time is a "concept", then so is space. If time is a "thing" then so is space.

Zz.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Actually, we DO know.

For example, the question on light being "wave" or "particle" has been addressed in our FAQ. Matter and "energy" are the same ONLY if one cares about "energy accounting", and nothing else. That's like saying an apple and an orange is the same IF you only care about "fruits". And we do know about "electromagnetic force" because QED is one of the most successful theory with the highest accuracy when compared to experiment. QED has more certainty about EM fields that you know about yourself! And yes, there ARE more than 3 dimensions. There are at least 4 that we know of (3 space, and 1 time). And related to this, if time is a "concept", then so is space. If time is a "thing" then so is space.

Zz.

So you do know, but on the first page you were saying things like this...

The questions being asked are based on rather an incomplete understanding of our current understanding. They are also rather vague in terms of what the question is really asking.

Were you just giving him a hard time at first? Instead of stating that those questions had answers, he was being told that his questions weren't scientific. Whatever that means.

 

[rewebster]

I was thinking the more accurate way to say it is, 'Actually, we DO know a lot about them'---but everything isn't known about them--and some things are more known 'about' than others.

as in Z's:

If you have studied QED, and have dealt with the issue of field theory, etc., and then you ask "Gee, what really is an electromagnetic force beyond these description?", then I would be VERY interested in hearing what you have to say.

Until the next step of 'knowing' comes out, people/scientists won't know how much we didn't know.

 

[zomgwtf]

There is a difference though.

If you have studied QED, and have dealt with the issue of field theory, etc., and then you ask "Gee, what really is an electromagnetic force beyond these description?", then I would be VERY interested in hearing what you have to say. Because if someone who has done all he/she can to understand it still have some leftover issues in trying to figure out what and why, then there's something to that.

But if all you had was an intro physics course, and then not only that, you THEN draw up the conclusion based on that level of understanding that the nature of electromagnetic force is just impossible to answer and beyond the capability of our minds, then I would dismiss that question immediately.

In the former, I don't have tell the questioner that he/she is missing a large portion of our current knowledge. In the latter, I have to not only counter the conclusion, but I may even have to spend a lot of time and effort teaching the basics first, something which that questioner should have put effort in before drawing up such conclusion. The propensity to simply draw up some conclusion without first figuring out if one has ample knowledge and information to even make an accurate conclusion is appalling.

Zz.

So you go from the questions are unscientific to "I don't want to answer your question because it's clear you have minimal understanding?"

Here I thought that this website was designed to help those people who have minimal understanding in various subjects to gain a better understanding. Yet, here we have a mentor of the forums, a scientist himself, saying that he won't answer the question merely because it's based off a 'intro physics course'... For instance I would say I had very minimal knowledge in cosmology but when I posted my 'minimal understanding questions' they were met with answers to set my thoughts straight. No one came at me with 'LOL you do'nt even know what your talking about so I'm not going to help you understand'

Very interesting...

 

[ZapperZ]

So you go from the questions are unscientific to "I don't want to answer your question because it's clear you have minimal understanding?"

And again, you MISSED THE POINT, especially when I've already mentioned this stand clearly in this thread earlier on.

If the question was about wanting to understand something, fine. But it isn't. It is about wanting an answer based on an already-made conclusion about the nature of something.

If you had ALREADY DECIDED about the nature of wave-particle, and then want me to answer to your question on why it is impossible to understand such a thing, then it is futile for me to answer and correct such ignorance when it is based on limited knowledge!

Sigh... this is getting nowhere. So go ahead and draw up your own conclusion about me or this forum. After all, this is what this thread is good at, which is making up conclusions based on faulty premise.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

So you do know, but on the first page you were saying things like this...

Were you just giving him a hard time at first? Instead of stating that those questions had answers, he was being told that his questions weren't scientific. Whatever that means.

I do know of the NATURE of the questions if I were to GUESS at what is being asked based on what has transpired. If someone were to walk to me and ask me "Do you know think we know what electromagnetic force is?", then I would certainly respond and try to explain. In fact, people HAVE asked me that since I run an outreach program often and also have welcomed the general public to our facility many times a year. I love nothing more than to answer such questions, because many members of the public do not get to interact with physicists very often, and when they do, it is understandable they have TONS of questions to ask.

But then, that isn't the question being asked, is it? I mean, look again at the original question related to the electromagnetic force and within the context and premise it was being asked. "What is an electromagnetic force?" is being asked within the premise that we really cannot understand (impossible?) it "... with our current brains"? Under THAT premise, do YOU think it is "scientific"? All I did was answer the question while completely ignoring the original premise of the OP.

Zz.

 

[zomgwtf]

And again, you MISSED THE POINT, especially when I've already mentioned this stand clearly in this thread earlier on.

If the question was about wanting to understand something, fine. But it isn't. It is about wanting an answer based on an already-made conclusion about the nature of something.

If you had ALREADY DECIDED about the nature of wave-particle, and then want me to answer to your question on why it is impossible to understand such a thing, then it is futile for me to answer and correct such ignorance when it is based on limited knowledge!

Sigh... this is getting nowhere. So go ahead and draw up your own conclusion about me or this forum. After all, this is what this thread is good at, which is making up conclusions based on faulty premise.

Zz.

I'm drawing conclusions based upon what has been stated in this thread. Questions are unscientific. Even if they ARE based upon a faulty premise that makes them no LESS scientific and it means you should CORRECT that premise. Not just brush it aside because the person only has a 'intro level physics course'.

You should feel as if it's your DUTY even, since you ARE a scientist, to make sure that the correct scientific knowledge and understanding is being tossed around on these forums. Regardless of if you're a mentor or not and regardless of if this forum is for mainstream science or crackpottery. You should always try and help those who pose questions.

 

[zomgwtf]

I do know of the NATURE of the questions if I were to GUESS at what is being asked based on what has transpired. If someone were to walk to me and ask me "Do you know think we know what electromagnetic force is?", then I would certainly respond and try to explain. In fact, people HAVE asked me that since I run an outreach program often and also have welcomed the general public to our facility many times a year. I love nothing more than to answer such questions, because many members of the public do not get to interact with physicists very often, and when they do, it is understandable they have TONS of questions to ask.

But then, that isn't the question being asked, is it? I mean, look again at the original question related to the electromagnetic force and within the context and premise it was being asked. "What is an electromagnetic force?" is being asked within the premise that we really cannot understand (impossible?) it "... with our current brains"? Under THAT premise, do YOU think it is "scientific"? All I did was answer the question while completely ignoring the original premise of the OP.

Zz.

There was no premise given that it is impossible to answer the questions which the OP posed. It was a question of IF we can EVER understand some questions in physics with our current 'brain' power. I would understand this to merely mean 'can we answer all questions that will come from physics given the limitations of being human. (so like how we perceive things in our universe etc.) This question can be both philosophical AND scientific.

The questions within the OP itself though are scientific, no doubt about it in my mind. As well, as far as I know, there is NO current understanding of what exactly any forces are. We know how they operate etc. but not exactly what the fundamentals are. Just because we don't know this information currently does not mean we never will and does not imply that this question is unscientific.

It seems to me that this thread has turned more into a scientist attempt at bashing philosophy more than anything else. (even though philosophy is only minimally involved and it's not even involved in the way some people are trying to present it)

 

[ZapperZ]

There was no premise given that it is impossible to answer the questions which the OP posed. It was a question of IF we can EVER understand some questions in physics with our current 'brain' power. I would understand this to merely mean 'can we answer all questions that will come from physics given the limitations of being human. (so like how we perceive things in our universe etc.) This question can be both philosophical AND scientific.

And that is not how I understood the questions within the premise of the OP. And that is how I addressed it BASED on that understanding. And was answering it based MY view, not from how Russ viewed it.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

my, my, my---

Sigh... this is getting nowhere. So go ahead and draw up your own conclusion about me or this forum. After all, this is what this thread is good at, which is making up conclusions based on faulty premise.

Zz.

I don't believe that that is what this thread is good for--first, I recognize that that is your opinion; secondly, this is a discussion; next, you're implying that the entire thread is faulty, and going nowhere, and making up conclusions.

Z, you sound frustrated. Almost as if you don't like discussions about philosophy---or being involved after you do get involved. People do have different opinions--that's what makes a discussion. This is a discussion.

And again, you MISSED THE POINT, especially when I've already mentioned this stand clearly in this thread earlier on.

If the question was about wanting to understand something, fine. But it isn't. It is about wanting an answer based on an already-made conclusion about the nature of something.
Zz.

Sometimes the thread title and the first post are only that, and sometimes they're over the top, like that 'blue tits' thread. Most people are coming from "an already-made conclusion" even when they do pose a question---its meant for some discussion, and getting other people's opinions.

If you had ALREADY DECIDED about the nature of wave-particle, and then want me to answer to your question on why it is impossible to understand such a thing, then it is futile for me to answer and correct such ignorance when it is based on limited knowledge!

Zz.

here's my 'my, my, my...'

geez, I don't think any of us were expecting a 'correct' answer---and put on the weight on you to do it, and entirely on your shoulders to resolve the issue.

Ignorance...

Ignorance, WHAT ignorance?

you seem to like using that word and I personally think using it escalates the 'discussion' to an argument (the negative type). Are you implying that everyone who gave an answer has 'ignorance' ? and its your job to correct it? my, my, my...

I'm sure everyone, and I mean everyone is ignorant-------to some degree about something; I don't like being called it, if I was the one you were talking about, because you really didn't say, you just implied (everyone), and I don't believe most other people would like it, including yourself of being even imply of being 'ignorant'.

I thought at the beginning that this may be an interesting thread, and it is. It's a discussion about science, philosophy, and the both the science of philosophy and the philosophy of science---and the questions of the first post, and the philosophy and science of the questions of the first post (plus the rest of the thread, that includes the minor topics too).

(my, my, my...



that took at least 30 min to type up)

 

[Galteeth]

Perhaps the question could be restated in a different way. It is an interesting idea that there may be some problems that our brains can't conceive of solutions to. Those questions the OP asked may have answers, but is there some inherent limit to what our hardware can solve for? The most obvious example of an "unanswerable" question to me is the causality paradox.

 

[ZapperZ]

Perhaps the question could be restated in a different way. It is an interesting idea that there may be some problems that our brains can't conceive of solutions to. Those questions the OP asked may have answers, but is there some inherent limit to what our hardware can solve for? The most obvious example of an "unanswerable" question to me is the causality paradox.

Certainly. I definitely recommend the OP reformulating those questions and asking them, one at a time, in the physics sub-forums, if he/she really wants to learn, before extrapolating and making conclusions. Get an understanding first before concluding that there are no answers to them.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

if they were put in physics sub-forums they would be different. They become 'physics' questions then.

I went back and re-read the original post. The idea of the original post isn't completely and/or exclusively concerning 'physics' questions. It doesn't belong in a 'physics sub-forum'.

The discussions like this are a way of getting a better understanding. Very few people know or do the things that you do, and for them a "Get an understanding first" to the level that you accept before they ask a question may be hard to do.

If anything, it may belong in the 'philosophy' forum, but a lot of other similar question are in general discussion and haven't been moved---



Normally when you don't like a thread, for whatever reason, they often get 'locked'---the person comes down here to complain, then that 'complaint' thread disappears---it's funny that of the ones I've looked at, the thread was somewhat diverted and the word 'ignorance' was often used.

What's interesting is that the thread was doing fine. I think we get away from Z's dislike of the thread and re-start/ re-set the discussion back to the topic.

 

[Nebula815]

Certainly. I definitely recommend the OP reformulating those questions and asking them, one at a time, in the physics sub-forums, if he/she really wants to learn, before extrapolating and making conclusions. Get an understanding first before concluding that there are no answers to them.

Zz.

I didn't say there are no answers to them, but I do not see how humans at the moment can for example understand the exact "what" the electromagnetic force is that causes say a proton and electron to attract one another. Sure mathematically perhaps, but that's it.

 

[rewebster]

I didn't say there are no answers to them, but I do not see how humans at the moment can for example understand the exact "what" the electromagnetic force is that causes say a proton and electron to attract one another. Sure mathematically perhaps, but that's it.

I think all your questions can be answered---maybe the answers aren't 'known' (yet). The way I see it that if we have enough talents to go to the moon and built things like the LHC, they may just come to be 'known' someday.

I've read some of the things written about Einstein (even though I don't agree with him) about his theories. Some comments about his theory were positive (protons) and some negative (electrons).

If you do read some of the things he wrote, like even the more common of his quotes, they can be more philosophical about the way things are than some (scientists) like. I can't remember if there was any in writing if he read any of the eastern religious writings, but it sounds like it.

 

[Nebula815]

I've read some of the things written about Einstein (even though I don't agree with him) about his theories. Some comments were positive (protons) and some negative (electrons).

Confused by this last statement, some of his comments were positive and some negative?

 

[rewebster]

corrected in the post

 

[Nebula815]

corrected in the post

So sorry, I am still confused though. You say, "Some comments about his theory were positive (protons) and some negative (electrons)."

How could comments about the theory be positive or negative in that sense? I mean there are positive comments (meaning approval) and negative comments (meaning disapproval) but those uses of the words "positive" and "negative" are different from referring to the electrical charges that we call "positive" (which protons are) and "negative" (which electrons are).

 

[Galteeth]

I didn't say there are no answers to them, but I do not see how humans at the moment can for example understand the exact "what" the electromagnetic force is that causes say a proton and electron to attract one another. Sure mathematically perhaps, but that's it.

Well, in the case of the EM force, there are descriptions in the standard model at the quantum level that account for it. Perhaps what you mean is that at any level of complexity you can hypothetically reduce to a more basic why, and there would seem to have to be some point where you say "that's just the way it is?"

 

[Nebula815]

You could say that, but to me what that really means is, "That's beyond our ability to understand in that sense right now."

It's like creation of the universe. Where did all this stuff come from? Has it always existed? Has time always existed? How could existence of time have a "start?" If someone created the universe, who created the creator? Those questions are again beyond our ability to understand and for all practical purposes don't matter, but I am sure there are answers to them, just beyond our reach.

 

[Galteeth]

You could say that, but to me what that really means is, "That's beyond our ability to understand in that sense right now."

It's like creation of the universe. Where did all this stuff come from? Has it always existed? Has time always existed? How could existence of time have a "start?" If someone created the universe, who created the creator? Those questions are again beyond our ability to understand and for all practical purposes don't matter, but I am sure there are answers to them, just beyond our reach.

This is the "causality paradox" I was referring to. This same paradox can be applied to regression of levels of complexity. I think what people were getting frustrated by was that you choose a level of complexity for which there does exist a simpler descriptive causative level. By saying that lacking an understanding of a phenomenon at all possible levels of causation is the same as having no understanding, you have eliminated all possible knowledge due to the nature of this paradox. So I understand what you are trying to say, but your point is a bit muddled, since saying we can't undertand the electromagnetic force because there is some level of causation at which are understanding cannot reduce is like saying we don't understand Newtonian mechanics, or anything else for that matter, because the same argument applies.

 

[zomgwtf]

You could say that, but to me what that really means is, "That's beyond our ability to understand in that sense right now."

It's like creation of the universe. Where did all this stuff come from? Has it always existed? Has time always existed? How could existence of time have a "start?" If someone created the universe, who created the creator? Those questions are again beyond our ability to understand and for all practical purposes don't matter, but I am sure there are answers to them, just beyond our reach.

Well THOSE questions are more philosophical because we can not observe the creation of the universe so questions of 'where di the stuff in our universe come from' are much more philosophical than scientific. We do have very good models in cosmology of these sorts of things but they are by no means the 'answer to everything'. For all we know everything done in the field of cosmology could be completely wrong.

As well I do not think that a question of 'what is the fundamental level we can get to of what we perceive' the same as 'what is fundamental of everything in our universe.' These are two very different questions one is scientific one is philosophical. The fundamentals of say forces we possibly COULD figure out becaues we can observe them right now. The fundamentals of 'where those came from' or 'what created the fundamentals' is merely philosophy being a nuissance. Sometimes questions really do go too far and can not be answered in any way empirically or logically... so they are better left alone.

The questions you asked in the OP however I didn't take in this sort of 'creation fundamentality' but if that WAS what you were meaning then I take back everything I had said about your questions being scientific and jump on the wagon with Zapper.

 

[rewebster]

As well I do not think that a question of 'what is the fundamental level we can get to of what we perceive' the same as 'what is fundamental of everything in our universe.' These are two very different questions one is scientific one is philosophical. The fundamentals of say forces we possibly COULD figure out becaues we can observe them right now. The fundamentals of 'where those came from' or 'what created the fundamentals' is merely philosophy being a nuissance. Sometimes questions really do go too far and can not be answered in any way empirically or logically... so they are better left alone.

I'll use Einstein for example again. Not working in the 'field', wasn't a great student, may or may not have done too much lab, and sat around wondering what it'd be like riding on a beam of light

So sorry, I am still confused though. You say, "Some comments about his theory were positive (protons) and some negative (electrons)."

How could comments about the theory be positive or negative in that sense? I mean there are positive comments (meaning approval) and negative comments (meaning disapproval) but those uses of the words "positive" and "negative" are different from referring to the electrical charges that we call "positive" (which protons are) and "negative" (which electrons are).

I was playing with words---there is the idea of positive and negative in a lot of things, and often 'things' come out of it---positron and electron, sides of a debate, questioning a theory---who know how much of some of today's theories came out of debates on earlier theories.

 

[zomgwtf]

I'll use Einstein for example again. Not working in the 'field', wasn't a great student, may or may not have done too much lab, and sat around wondering what it'd be like riding on a beam of light

That's great, you can observe a beam of light and make measurements on it. What's your point again?

 

[rewebster]

That's great, you can observe a beam of light and make measurements on it. What's your point again?

you're may be thinking of it in the present day---with the present knowledge...

if you were there when Einstein was not working in the 'field', wasn't a great student, may or may not have done too much lab, and sat around wondering what it'd be like riding on a beam of light, you may have thought that this line of question "really do go too far and can not be answered in any way empirically or logically... so they are better left alone."

It almost sounds like you're against theory work, because it can't be taken any farther, are you?

 

[zomgwtf]

you're may be thinking of it in the present day---with the present knowledge...

if you were there when Einstein was not working in the 'field', wasn't a great student, may or may not have done too much lab, and sat around wondering what it'd be like riding on a beam of light, you may have thought that this line of question "really do go too far and can not be answered in any way empirically or logically... so they are better left alone."

It almost sounds like you're against theory work, because it can't be taken any farther, are you?

You're telling me that because we didn't understand what light was that we couldn't see it? That's just plain ole rediculous. Just because he took an unconventional way of looking at things which no one thought about doesn't mean he COULDN'T perceive light.

We CAN NOT perceive the creation of our own universe there ARE limits to what we can observe.