Is the simple explanation of modern physics ever the case?

In summary: If that's what modern science is all about, being able to predict certain outcomes in our macroscopic world, then what is the point of ascribing these pictures when fundamentally, that is not what's going on (other than to help the general public who have no intentions of further study).The point is that, although the pictures may not be "true", they are very useful in predicting the outcomes of experiments. It's a bit like a map. It doesn't show everything, but it is very helpful in orienting oneself.
  • #1
jaydnul
558
15
In QM for example, I realize it is pointless to try and picture what is happening because the is nothing macroscopic to base it on. In GR, we are told that something called space-time is curved which creates the phenomenon of gravitational force. The deeper you go into these subjects, however, it seems that the simple explanation is never the case. Am I right in saying that gravity really isn't the warping of something called space-time, but it is helpful to think of it in that way in order to predict certain outcomes in our macroscopic world? If that's what modern science is all about, being able to predict certain outcomes in our macroscopic world, then what is the point of ascribing these pictures when fundamentally, that is not what's going on (other than to help the general public who have no intentions of further study).

From what I've gathered, a modern working theoretical physicist tries to formulate mathematics to predict the macroscopic outcomes of experiments that could be performed. That's great, but it really doesn't tell us exactly what's physically going on, and our unaided human brains probably could never understand what's going on, unless it involved simple Newtonian dynamics. Is that somewhat accurate?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Jd0g33 said:
From what I've gathered, a modern working theoretical physicist tries to formulate mathematics to predict the macroscopic outcomes of experiments that could be performed. That's great, but it really doesn't tell us exactly what's physically going on, and our unaided human brains probably could never understand what's going on, unless it involved simple Newtonian dynamics. Is that somewhat accurate?

It's always been that way. When Newton wrote ##F=Gm_1m_2/r^2## he was formulating mathematics to describe the outcomes of experiments involving falling bodies. That was great but it didn't tell us exactly what was physically going on - it just restated it in mathematical terms.
 
  • #3
The space-time curvature is so far the best picture and best explanation we have for gravity (General Relativity). But any physical theory can only be judged on its predictions, and not on its "picture". What can you "really say is going on" in any theory? Even in classical mechanics we have the two different "pictures" - Newtonian and Lagrangian.
 
  • #4
This might sound naive but why does that satisfy you?

Also, why do we have all these different interpretations of QM when at the end of the day, scientifically, we have what we need which is a predictive mathematical formulation.
 
  • #5
Jd0g33 said:
Also, why do we have all these different interpretations of QM when at the end of the day, scientifically, we have what we need which is a predictive mathematical formulation.
That is a good question. Frankly, all of the worry and discussion about QM interpretations seems incredibly pointless to me.
 
  • #6
Jd0g33 said:
In QM for example, I realize it is pointless to try and picture what is happening because the is nothing macroscopic to base it on.

Isn't that exactly the reason? ...to try to determine how the macro we know is built on the micro we don't know? Isn't finding that connection vital? We have grown used to rapid advancement and have no frame of reference for how long and arduous the crawl used to be in early work. In this frame, QM is but a baby, and babies get into trouble, make mistakes and messes, but in Science I'm betting everyone is aware of the retort "Of what use is a baby?" I think it applies here.
 
  • #7
Jd0g33 said:
This might sound naive but why does that satisfy you?

Also, why do we have all these different interpretations of QM when at the end of the day, scientifically, we have what we need which is a predictive mathematical formulation.

That's an odd juxtaposition of questions. The only reason that the curved spacetime formulation of GR satisfies is that it makes predictions that match our observations... just as does QM without interpretation.
 
  • #8
Jd0g33 said:
The deeper you go into these subjects, however, it seems that the simple explanation is never the case.
Einstein liked to use simple "thought experiments" to explain his theories. Take those seriously. They are correct, not just convenient.
Am I right in saying that gravity really isn't the warping of something called space-time, but it is helpful to think of it in that way in order to predict certain outcomes
No. The warping is completely correct as far as any experiments have been able to test it so far. Other, simpler, explanations have all failed. But those simpler explanations usually left some very serious questions unanswered (like, why is there a preferred inertial reference frame and who decides which reference frame is correct?). So they were not as complete an explanation as Einstein's is. The beauty of Einstein's theories is that, although the math is difficult, everything follows logically from a very small number of fundamental hypothesis.
From what I've gathered, a modern working theoretical physicist tries to formulate mathematics to predict the macroscopic outcomes of experiments that could be performed. That's great, but it really doesn't tell us exactly what's physically going on,
The mathematics is based on hypotheses. When the math works out to verify experimental results, that supports the hypotheses that started it all. The hypotheses are the explanation, not the math calculations. Einstein's special relativity hypothesized that the speed of light is constant. The math that followed from that gave better results than anything else. The hypothesis "the speed of light is constant." is the explanation of what is going on. The math is just necessary to see what follows from that hypothesis, to make predictions and to see if experiments support or disprove the hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes enorbet

1. What is the definition of modern physics?

Modern physics is the branch of physics that deals with the behavior of matter and energy at a very small scale, such as atoms and subatomic particles, and at a very large scale, such as galaxies and the universe. It is based on the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, and has led to many groundbreaking discoveries and advancements in technology.

2. What are the major theories of modern physics?

The two major theories of modern physics are relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity, proposed by Albert Einstein, explains the behavior of objects in motion and the effects of gravity on the scale of the universe. Quantum mechanics, developed by scientists such as Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, describes the behavior of particles on a subatomic level and the probabilistic nature of their interactions.

3. How has modern physics impacted society?

The advancements in technology and understanding that have come from modern physics have had a profound impact on society. This includes the development of nuclear energy and weapons, the invention of transistors and microchips, and the creation of technologies such as GPS, lasers, and MRI machines.

4. What are the current challenges in modern physics?

Some of the current challenges in modern physics include the unification of the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, the search for a theory of everything, and understanding the mysterious dark matter and dark energy in the universe. There is also ongoing research in areas such as quantum computing and the study of black holes.

5. How can someone understand the concepts of modern physics?

Understanding the concepts of modern physics requires a strong foundation in mathematics and a willingness to think abstractly. It can also be helpful to read books and articles written for a general audience, attend lectures or talks by experts in the field, and engage in discussions with others interested in the subject. It is important to keep an open mind and be willing to challenge your own understanding and beliefs.

Similar threads

Replies
49
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
16
Views
11K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
94
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
785
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
2
Views
13K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
975
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top