Science isn't the kind of circular dynamic I thought it was.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the limitations of physics in explaining the fundamental reasons behind scientific laws, such as why the speed of light is constant or why mass distorts space-time. While experiments can demonstrate how these laws operate, they do not provide answers to the underlying "why" questions, which may belong more to metaphysics than to physics. The conversation emphasizes that theories in physics are validated through experimentation rather than proven, highlighting the complexity and potential incompleteness of scientific understanding. It suggests that, similar to mathematics, physics relies on chosen postulates that fit experimental results but may not be self-explanatory. Ultimately, the thread reflects on the philosophical implications of scientific inquiry and the inherent limitations of theoretical frameworks.
MinnesotaState
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Science isn't the kind of "circular dynamic" I thought it was.

"Why the laws are as they are is a pretty easy question to answer."

The statement above really bothers me.

Why is C constant? Why does mass distort space-time? ...

Experiment tells us what the laws are

but experiments don't exactly tell us why the laws are set that way.

or can they?


You can tell me why mass distorts space-time because that's what the experiment shows, but does the experiment give reason as to why mass distorts space-time in the first place?

I'm struggling to word this but,

Can Physics explain itself?

Can it make the full loop?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
All physics does is tell us how something changes or reacts in response to changes in environment or conditions.

The question of why something is the way it is is more appropriate for metaphysics rather than physics.
 
You never really prove a theory's correctness, you just test its validity until it's no longer valid.

And the best test is to check how much does the theoretical result differ from the experiment, that's the only merit a successful theory has.
 
It is very unlikely that any theory of reality can explain itself. It is unlikely that any theory of anything can explain itself. At some point there is a postulate. In mathematics the postulates/axioms are chosen for a number of reasons. In physics they are chosen to fit with experiment (and be as simple as possible).

Since physics quickly gets very complex, take simple math. How do you prove that 7+6=13? Usually one would say "well, I have 7 apples and I have another 6 apples..." but how do we know that the same holds for pencils? It doesn't work for clocks (in North America).

One might dream that someday part of the set of postulates could be used to prove the others, but we should be humbled by the failure to do so in mathematics. I shouldn't bring up Godel's incompleteness theorem because I don't know enough about it and I've been told that it can't be applied to physics, but I just did, so read about it.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?

Similar threads

Back
Top