What If Our Understanding of Physics Is Fundamentally Flawed?

[Bobster]

A thought just occurred to me.We have made so many scientific discoveries over centuries.Many physicists believe that in 50 years time there won't be anything else left that needs to be discovered.What if what we think about things is wrong ?.After all we fix frames of references,we define velocities,directions, everything is adjusted to fit our way of thinking.What would happen if one day we all wake up and discover that all the physics we've done so far is wrong,it is right from our point of view but for others is completely different ??

 

[wuliheron]

Thinking four dimensionally much less eleven dimensionally is not what I would call adjusting physics to the human thought process. Nor does a theory of everything mean a theory to end all theories, it just means one theory that will explain everything or just about everything we can observe today. If we find out there is something we are missing because we just haven't been able to observe it, it will be no different than when we first discovered radio waves or any number of things no one had ever observed. We'll update our theories of everything to include the new observations.

 

[arildno]

A thought just occurred to me.We have made so many scientific discoveries over centuries.Many physicists believe that in 50 years time there won't be anything else left that needs to be discovered.What if what we think about things is wrong ?.After all we fix frames of references,we define velocities,directions, everything is adjusted to fit our way of thinking.What would happen if one day we all wake up and discover that all the physics we've done so far is wrong,it is right from our point of view but for others is completely different ??

This is incorrect.
The ways we measure stuff is independent of our theories of stuff.

 

[Royce]

A thought just occurred to me.We have made so many scientific discoveries over centuries.Many physicists believe that in 50 years time there won't be anything else left that needs to be discovered.What if what we think about things is wrong ?.After all we fix frames of references,we define velocities,directions, everything is adjusted to fit our way of thinking.What would happen if one day we all wake up and discover that all the physics we've done so far is wrong,it is right from our point of view but for others is completely different ??

This happens frequently, around 1917 when Einstein came out with Special Relativity and later General Relativity. Then a few years later the implications of QM and later QD and QC came out and are still being discussed.
Get used to it. Today's brilliance and absolutes are tomorrow's folly and ignorance.

 

[Zantra]

If we're wrong then it is a triumph, because at least we're asking the question. That is the true genius- not the answer, but figuring out the right question to ask. 50 years is far too soon to know everything. As long as there is any part of our known universe that we haven't been to, then there are still far too many questions to make such a blanket statement- to say nothing of the "unknown" universal equation.

I'm not afraid that we'll stop finding answers... I'm afraid we'll stop asking questions.

 

[arildno]

This happens frequently, around 1917 when Einstein came out with Special Relativity and later General Relativity. Then a few years later the implications of QM and later QD and QC came out and are still being discussed.
Get used to it. Today's brilliance and absolutes are tomorrow's folly and ignorance.

Again, incorrect!
General relativity does NOT predict other results for the propagation of water waves, for example.
Here, the results of GR and QM coincides with both classical physics and the measurements done years before.

 

[RAD4921]

The deep mysteryof consciousness

Quantum mechanics and relativity do reveal some truths about reality but they are only approximations. The physics and sciences of today says little about consciousness and why the universe is self aware. Why is it that a ball of rock floating around an ordinary star has eyes, ears and a mind? I think it will be much much longer than 50 years before the questions of the deep mystery of existence is answered, if ever.

 

[Royce]

Again, incorrect!
General relativity does NOT predict other results for the propagation of water waves, for example.
Here, the results of GR and QM coincides with both classical physics and the measurements done years before.

I was speaking of the complete overturn of Newtonian/ classical physics as being thought of as absolutes and that space time were thought of as absolutes. Relativity overturned all of this showing that even time is relative.
QM, QED and later QCD completely changed the way we thought of atoms and there sub atomic particles and well as all of their interactions.
Classical Physics is good for everyday cookbook measurements but is not the absolute knowledge that it was once thought of being.
Physicist around the 1900 said that everything knowable was now known and physics and science would soon be coming to and end. As soon as that was said SR, GR and QM etc came about and everything known had to be rethought. The only truth to the previous statement was that what is now known as classical physics was done.

 

[arildno]

I am perfectly aware of what you&the other poster MEANT.
However, if QM&GR hadn't been able to account for the measurements a man strolling about might make, those theories would have been FALSE.
The ability of a theory to predict "everyday behaviour" is as important (IMO, even more so) an acid test for their validity, than their ability for explainig "new phenomena".
Since QM&GR does this in their respective limits, those theories MIGHT be right.

The fact that these theories are able to predict what measurements will be gain in "new areas", where the predictions of classical physics is completely off-scale, show these to be BETTER theories.

The basic criterion however, for the quality of a (general) theory is its ability to predict established, certain measurements. If it doesn't do so, it is worthless.

Also, a general theory which "explains" new phenomena, but is completely off-scale with respect to old phenomena, is without scientific value.
(It is then more probable that it is an ad-hoc hypothesis rather than a scientific theory)

 

[Royce]

What possibly could be more basic and germane than classical physics holding that space and time are absolute and that relativity shows that they are relative. Your man walking around gets different results than if he stand still relative to the event. Relativity effects everything whether we can measure it or not just as does QM.
The entire thought processes and paradigms have changed and shows that classical physics is and was wrong, completely wrong and at best only estimates. I find it hard to believe that anyone today can so easily dismiss their importance or the magnatude of the revolution.

 

[arildno]

Read my response again.
You're missing the point with your irrational dismissal of classical physics, and in my view, your equally irrational belief in the absolute truth of modern physics.
(Basically, you're walking into the same trap as early 19th century physicists had occasion to do (the situation is not as bad as with the late 19th-physicists, who should have known better by that time than believing in classical physics)).

If you are unable to see
1.That the value of a scientific theory lies in its ability to predict correctly what we may measure
2.That a theory can only be said to be better than another if it reproduces the same predictions as the other did where this was excellent PLUS making accurate results where the other was not so good (or way off)
(QM&GR do, as I've clearly stated fulfill these criteria)

then you don't understand a thing about science.

It is quite indicative that you seem to think QM&GR has anything to add to the measurements the man strolling about; they don't, the effects predicted by these theories are completely undetectable. For example, use whatever two clocks you want at relative speed 1m/s, you won't be able to detect any time dilation.
(It is below the precision level of the instruments)

 

[hypnagogue]

Royce and arildno, I think you two essentially agree on all the important points. It appears that you two are just interpreting the original question of this thread differently, which is causing confusion where there needn't be any. The original question was:

What would happen if one day we all wake up and discover that all the physics we've done so far is wrong,it is right from our point of view but for others is completely different ??

Now, this question is phrased a bit ambiguously. The ambiguity seems to turn on the phrase 'for others.' What would it mean for our accepted physics to be incorrect 'for others'?

On one interpretation, perhaps these 'others' simply inhabit a different set of physical circumstances and so observe different physical laws. We might imagine that a 19th century Newtonian physicist would regard his physics as basically 'right,' whereas an alien physicist on a spaceship traveling at near light speed would observe very different physics from his point of view.

I believe Royce interpreted the question this way, and so cited general relativity and quantum mechanics as quite valid examples of where a previously accepted physics turned out to be 'wrong' from certain points of view (in this case, the macroscopic and microscopic 'points of view' of nature, respectively).

On another interpretation of the question, perhaps Bobster means to ask if there might be some other beings who could exist in the same physical circumstances as humans and yet observe different laws of nature. Of course, unless we want to upturn everything we know about nature, the answer here would have to be 'no.' These beings might conceive of the world very differently, but at the very least their observations and predictions of nature would have to be consistent with ours in the context of our mutual physical circumstances. (As an approximate illustration, an animistic tribe member and a modern physicist will conceive of the world very differently, but at least both will agree that a moving body on the Earth's surface will eventually come to rest.)

I believe arildno interpreted the question this way, hence his emphasis on the fact that QM and GR are still consistent with Newtonian physics in the set of physical circumstances under which Newtonian physics has been shown to work well, namely the 'ordinary' world of stuff existing roughly on the human scale of nature. This too, of course, is a valid point as a refutation of this second interpretaion of Bobster's question.

It appears that the only reason for argument here is that arildno is assuming that Royce is operating under the same interpretation of the question as arildno is (the second one), and vice versa for Royce. You both have made valid points, and there needn't be any conflict between the two.

 

[arildno]

Thank you, hypnagogue!
First of all, I do not deny nor diminish the magnitude of the PHILOSOPHICAL revolution which were made by QM&GR (nor as I've said, the fact that they break new frontiers).

However, I thought it was needed a pointed reminder, that whatever new horizons we're facing, whatever new frontiers we are breaking, we cannot, under any circumstances, accept as a valid scientific theory a theory INCONSISTENT with old and CERTAIN results (ie., established measurements).
New general theories must be shown compatible with old theories where these are great, even if that area of research becomes peripheral under the aegis of the new theory.

 

[Royce]

However, I thought it was needed a pointed reminder, that whatever new horizons we're facing, whatever new frontiers we are breaking, we cannot, under any circumstances, accept as a valid scientific theory a theory INCONSISTENT with old and CERTAIN results (ie., established measurements).
New general theories must be shown compatible with old theories where these are great, even if that area of research becomes peripheral under the aegis of the new theory.

But, arildno, That is exactly my point. General Relativity upset and countered the very core of Newtonian/Classical physics, time and space itself. Relativity and quantum Mechanics are not based on previous theories nor are they consistent at all with them. Classic physics is based on absolute time, space,
location, velocity, and direction. GR and QM are based on the proven fact that time and space are purely relative, that there is no such thing as non-relative or absolute movement, direction or velocity; and QM is based on the proven fact that we cannot know precisely the momentum and location of a particle which completely blows away the classical physics' "determinations universe."
It is far more than just a different view point. It is a completely different and incompatible way of viewing reality. It/they are brand new fields of science, information and knowledge that is not compatible, based on or merely different versions of the same thing, classical physics.
Classical physics have not only been proven wrong but not even based on reality. Sure it works for day to day high school classes and experiments and day to day measurements but as we advance in our studies we are soon confronted with the proven facts that everything that we have learned so far is wrong and we have to learn an entirely new set of laws, theories and sciences that are not at all intuitive, obvious nor common sensicle (rational), that have no basis in common day to day life.

 

[hypnagogue]

But, arildno, That is exactly my point. General Relativity upset and countered the very core of Newtonian/Classical physics, time and space itself. Relativity and quantum Mechanics are not based on previous theories nor are they consistent at all with them.

The point is that Newtonian physics is compatible with QM and GR in the domain in which it is applied. If one applies the laws of QM and GR to the physical circumstances in which the predictions of Newtonian physics agree with experiment, then the laws of QM and GR wind up looking the same as the Newtonian laws.

You are talking about something more than just the form of the laws when you invoke Newtonian assumptions of absolute space and time, determinism, etc. But this is more of a question of metaphysics than it is of physics. The interpretation of physical theories is always up for grabs to some extent. We've had QM for about 100 years already, and still there is no consensus about the physical meaning of it all. It would be unfair to judge physical theory primarily on metaphysical interpretation. When we talk about compatibility, we are primarily concerned with to what extent the laws agree with each other and predict the same results.

That said, in the limit of the domain of the 'normal,' everyday world, even the ontological underpinnings of QM and GR wind up reducing more or less to those endorsed by Newtonian physics. QM teaches us that phenomena on the microscopic scale behave indeterministically, but on the human scale most things do wind up behaving deterministically; likewise, GR teaches us that space and time are not absolute, but for us slow moving inhabitants on Earth, relativistic effects of space and time are by and large not significant, and they are just as well considered to be static and unchanging.

Again, there isn't incompatibility here as much as there are wider domains of applicability afforded by QM and GR. The Newtonian study of 'human scale' objects situated on Earth is consistent (i.e. not incompatible) with this wider perspective as long as it is considered to be a special case. Your view seems to be captured by an analogy along the lines of "Newtonian physics is to modern physics as squares are to circles," when a much better analogy would be "Newtonian physics is to modern physics as squares are to rectangles."

 

[Royce]

The point is that Newtonian physics is compatible with QM and GR in the domain in which it is applied. If one applies the laws of QM and GR to the physical circumstances in which the predictions of Newtonian physics agree with experiment, then the laws of QM and GR wind up looking the same as the Newtonian laws.

You are talking about something more than just the form of the laws when you invoke Newtonian assumptions of absolute space and time, determinism, etc. But this is more of a question of metaphysics than it is of physics. The interpretation of physical theories is always up for grabs to some extent. We've had QM for about 100 years already, and still there is no consensus about the physical meaning of it all. It would be unfair to judge physical theory primarily on metaphysical interpretation. When we talk about compatibility, we are primarily concerned with to what extent the laws agree with each other and predict the same results.

That said, in the limit of the domain of the 'normal,' everyday world, even the ontological underpinnings of QM and GR wind up reducing more or less to those endorsed by Newtonian physics. QM teaches us that phenomena on the microscopic scale behave indeterministically, but on the human scale most things do wind up behaving deterministically; likewise, GR teaches us that space and time are not absolute, but for us slow moving inhabitants on Earth, relativistic effects of space and time are by and large not significant, and they are just as well considered to be static and unchanging.

Again, there isn't incompatibility here as much as there are wider domains of applicability afforded by QM and GR. The Newtonian study of 'human scale' objects situated on Earth is consistent (i.e. not incompatible) with this wider perspective as long as it is considered to be a special case. Your view seems to be captured by an analogy along the lines of "Newtonian physics is to modern physics as squares are to circles," when a much better analogy would be "Newtonian physics is to modern physics as squares are to rectangles."

So spock the flat earthers and the Catholic Church and from their perspective/view point they were and are right. Yet they are wrong and always were wrong. QM is hardly metaphysical nor was the idea of a determinat universe under Newton. Even with uncertainty QM is the most exact and accurate model of reality that we have

 

[Chronos]

You could say the same thing about GR.

 

[Mazuz]

We know our scientific theories are all ready wrong. They are tools which help us understand the world relative to our perspective. The universe doesn't operate on the physics of life forms because life forms are really molecules. And the universe doesn't operate on the physics of molecules because molecules are really atoms. And atoms are really subatomic particles. And subatomic particles are really strings or whatever. Our theories are approximations of nature because the fundamental building blocks of these theories don't exist but are always products of a deeper system. This is why our theories are never perfect, we need an understanding of the deepest level, if that’s possible.

And to Rad4921, you say physics is wrong today because it says little about consciousness and why our universe is self aware. I disagree with this, though many people share this opinion and I have heard it many times. I think that science lays out an explanation for consciousness and awareness perfectly, but you have to be willing to accept it. What we experience as human beings is awareness, though we often describe it as consciousness. Consciousness as some sort of essence of its own doesn’t exist (zero evidence for it). Awareness does exist, but it is a product of our biology.. our brains. Memory makes this possible. You can say science hasn't proved this, but all evidence points this way and as far as I can tell there is nothing indicating otherwise except human beliefs.

 

[arildno]

royce:
You seem to be under the confusion between the "ontological claims" of a theory and its "applicability".
Let's first state the following fact:
The postulates of Newtonian physics as ontological claims for how existence "really is", have soundly been disproven, since realms of reality have been discovered in which those postulates leads to predictions which are completely at odds with measurements.
Hence, we really don't have any good reasons to regard those postulates as fundamentally true with regard to those realms of reality in which N.P: works excellently.

But, precisely because N.P: works excellently there, the philosophical turn-over is of no significance whatever when it comes to evaluation of its applicability.

For example, to go around believing that ship/off-shore industry researchers&engineers are following an inherently flawed approach in their physics because they do not take into account GR&QM-specific effects in their calculations, is simply silly, and shows little understanding of NP, and for that matter, GR&QM.

 

[Brad Barron]

There we always be new discoveries. That's what makes this world function.

-Brad Barron

 

[selfAdjoint]

There we always be new discoveries. That's what makes this world function.

-Brad Barron

What made the world function before we were here to make discoveries?

 

[Royce]

Saying that Newtonian/Classical physics is still valid and useful because it works nicely for everyday use on Earth is the same as saying that from my perspective the Earth is flat and is at the center of the universe with the sun and stars revolving around it, that time and space are absolute that empty space does not and can not exist, that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects and that 3 is close enough to the actual value of pi for everyday use and therefore stand at the same level of correctness and usefulness as modern physics and science.
I have tried to think of one single instance in my life when the fact that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun rather than being flat and at the center of the universe has directly effected me or my life outside of a class room or science or philosophic discussion. I can't. Yet if I went around proclaiming that the Earth is flat and that the sun and stars revolved around the Earth I would be ridiculed, scorned as an ignorant crack pot and probably locked up.
Yes Classical Physics works; but, its fundamental basis is flawed and Newton himself knew it and admitted it at the time. Modern Physics may well be wrong also but is based on much more accurate models that have been observed time and time again to be pres ice and consistent.
The move from Aristotelian physics to Newtonian Physics was just such an event as described in it the opening post of this thread. The move from classical, Newtonian physics was another such move where everything Known was found and proven to be wrong just as posted. Cling to it all you want but it does not chance the facts that classical physics is erroneous and based on false assumptions.

 

[arildno]

As I said, you are completely deluded, since you don't know the difference between "ontological claims" and applicability.

 

[Twistedseer]

The move from classical, Newtonian physics was another such move where everything Known was found and proven to be wrong just as posted. Cling to it all you want but it does not chance the facts that classical physics is erroneous and based on false assumptions.

Royce, Newtonian calculation are used because they are usable.

Relativity is not, practical in most "day to day" cases it generates far to much data.

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinEquations.html#mathmines

Twistedseer

 

[Gonzolo]

What if we are all wrong?

So what, if we are all wrong? Hypothetical people who find this will also be smart enough to adapt.

What made the world function before we were here to make discoveries?"

There have always been discoveries, whether it is Einstein discovering energy in matter or a 100 million years BC mosquitoe discovering a new source of food. Some are just more spectacular.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Before about 4.5 billion years ago, there wasn't any life on earth. Were the discoveries then made by solids, fluids, and gases? To me this would stretch the meaning of "discovery" until it didn't mean anything at all.

 

[NoTime]

I'm not afraid that we'll stop finding answers... I'm afraid we'll stop asking questions.

What questions?
Suppose I could give you the Universal equation.
It answers every conceivable question.
Even to the extent of telling you about things external to the Universe.
The very word "belief" would be obsolete.
Something would be unknown only because you were to lazy to do the calculation.
Knowlegdge of God you probably will not like, total mass to energy conversion, how to build a universe for $250, everything possible and exactly what is not possible.
One unanswerable question left-> What is the person standing next to me thinking?

What then?
Do you want it?
If you discovered it, would you publish?

 

[Zantra]

What questions?
Suppose I could give you the Universal equation.
It answers every conceivable question.
Even to the extent of telling you about things external to the Universe.
The very word "belief" would be obsolete.
Something would be unknown only because you were to lazy to do the calculation.
Knowlegdge of God you probably will not like, total mass to energy conversion, how to build a universe for $250, everything possible and exactly what is not possible.
One unanswerable question left-> What is the person standing next to me thinking?

What then?
Do you want it?
If you discovered it, would you publish?

Imagine a world where no one asks why life exists. Where no one questions our world, or the leaders of our world. Where decisions and the very thoughts we think are made without our consent. Think 1984. What would you do if you didn't HAVE to think for yourself?

What then?
Is that what YOU want?
Would you kick back with a beer and watch the Simpsons? Read your prefabricated newspaper typed in "newspeak" and walk upon the flat earth?

You ask "what question?" My answer is any question.
You fear that one day the Omega will be upon us and we'll have nothing left to do. I'm more afraid that we'll give up trying to get there.

 

[Royce]

Oh, God, its so hard to soar with eagles when I'm surrounded by turkeys.

As I said, you are completely deluded, since you don't know the difference between "ontological claims" and applicability.

The fact that you are able to post such narrow minded short sighted inanities as the above on this website and we are able to read them is proof the the application of QM effects our lives everyday in numerous ways.
Such things as transistors, ICs, Large scale Integrated circuits, lasers etc are all applications of Quantum Mechanics, virtually all of electronics is QM applied to our everyday world. Computers, CDs, DVD, the world wide web INTERNET are all direct applications of QM. It also effects chemistry, biology and medical science which effect all of us every day of our lives.

I can think of no direct effect of relativity on our lives; but, our nations are investing and spending billions of dollars and euros on the investigation of relativity, cosmology etc so in that way it effects all of us and who knows how it will effect us if and when GR and QM are merged and we discover GUT and TOE.

 

[arildno]

First of all, the GPS navigation system is a great invention where the effects of relativity needs to be taken into account.
I've never said a single word about QM not being "applicable"; I've said it has a much better "ontological claim" than classical NP (by which I also include Maxwell's electromagnetism and Boltzmann's thermodynamics).

The fact you fail to appreciate, is that there are wide regimes in which NP not only is applicable, but as it happens, theoretically justified as being the optimal approximative technique from GR&QM.

Scientific practice is about doing intelligent approximations, and discarding complicating effects which wouldn't matter much anyway.

 

[Royce]

The more we discuss this issue the more we agree. I never said that NP wasn't useful I just said it was wrong, its assumptions were wrong and its basic tenets were wrong and that Newton himself knew and admitted it. It worked and in most practical applications it still works within reason. That does not change the fact that it is wrong. I pointed this out as one example of it actually having happened in response to the original question of this thread.

 

[NoTime]

You ask "what question?" My answer is any question.
You fear that one day the Omega will be upon us and we'll have nothing left to do. I'm more afraid that we'll give up trying to get there.

I don't fear it.
I'm not so sure about civilization.
I just think that one day, perhaps soon, that it will be here.
This thread is about how it would be observed.
Just posting some thoughts on that.
And wondering what we will then do?
It will not be a case of giving up. Giving up will not be an option.

 

[arildno]

The more we discuss this issue the more we agree. I never said that NP wasn't useful I just said it was wrong, its assumptions were wrong and its basic tenets were wrong and that Newton himself knew and admitted it. It worked and in most practical applications it still works within reason. That does not change the fact that it is wrong. I pointed this out as one example of it actually having happened in response to the original question of this thread.

Can we agree upon the following:
1)We must regard NP in its "ontological claims" dead wrong because it's predictions in several areas are way off from measurements we've made?
2)At these various areas, we cannot as easily dismiss the "ontological claims" of QM&GR for the reason that predictions we've made have a stunning match with the measurements?
3)That QM&GR can (and must) be regarded as more GENERAL theories than NP, because in the domain where NP works excellently, QM&GR in their respective limits reduce to the statement that "Newtonian effects" will be the most dominant effects of those we may measure?
(For example, in the limit \frac{u}{c}<<1, the Lorentz transformation will agree to a dominant degree with results stated by the Galilean transformation.)
4) If this hadn't been the case, (for example in that the Lorentz transformation did NOT reduce to the Galilean in the low-speed limit)
then physics would essentially have been sundered into 3 distinct regimes which had no way of talking to each other?
5)When dealing with complex phenomena in the region where the Newton approximation is excellent (let's say weather forecast, seismology, oil drilling, whatever), the reasonable scientific procedure is simply to disregard the "peculiarities" of GR&QM as simply unnecessary complications in our modelling practice.

If you agree to this, I retract all of my grumpier statements, and apologize..

 

[Royce]

I will go even further than that. In #1, NP is not dead wrong because of gross errors.
It is wrong because its assumptions are wrong (ontology). NP works as a very accurate model when applied to non-relativity velocities and situations. We still don't have a good handle on gravity or inertia other than characteristics of a theorietical Higgs Field.
#3, I would say that GR and QM are more general in that they are applicable under all or at least most circumstances.
Classical Physics is and remains a useful model for non-relative and non-microcosmic situations, that has never been in question. It is however limited to these situations and can not even be considered "special theories" as their basic assumptions have been proven by numerous observations in every case to be wrong.
If you want to call that ontological correct but applicably wrong then so be it. My point or opinion is that it is always wrong no matter how useful and accurate in normal circumstances it may be.
We also know that even as accurate and general as GR and QM are they are not complete nor completely absolutely accurate as we can't account for gravity nor merge the two together in one all inclusive theory of everything.
As all of you said it is more a difference of interpretation and/or view point than a difference of theory or opinion; i.e. we agree generally but not specifically.
Nor is it necessary to take back anything nor apologize as the rules here in the PF's in general and the Philosophy section specifically are:
1. No quarter asked and none given.
2. No holds barred.
3. All's fair in love and war.
4. This is all out war, and to mix my metaphors, if you can't stand the heat get out of
the kitchen, or if you prefer, the PF's.

 

[arildno]

NP is wrong (that is, the assumptions) are wrong because it necessarily predicts something which demonstrably, by evidence, is wrong.
It is falsified by evidence, and evidence remain (and I will continue to say so) the fundamental acid test by which any theory must pass.

 

[arildno]

Well, it is ALWAYS WRONG to call a first-order appproximation to a solution for an exact solution, isn't it?
(Such approximations are not, in general only to be found in NP).

To neglect terms in an assumedly correct diff.eq. in order to get a simpler problem is ALWAYS WRONG if that's what you want to say..

 

[Zantra]

I don't fear it.
I'm not so sure about civilization.
I just think that one day, perhaps soon, that it will be here.
This thread is about how it would be observed.
Just posting some thoughts on that.
And wondering what we will then do?
It will not be a case of giving up. Giving up will not be an option.

I don't see an omega.
I see an omega inside of an omega, and on until infinity.
I see us, our solar system, our galaxy, our universe,
And finally I see a blade of grass.
Where you see an end, I see only the beginning

And why are we making Haikus ?

 

[NoTime]

I don't see an omega.
I see an omega inside of an omega, and on until infinity.
I see us, our solar system, our galaxy, our universe,
And finally I see a blade of grass.
Where you see an end, I see only the beginning

And why are we making Haikus ?

Because you have read Stephen King?

 

[Zantra]

Because you have read Stephen King?

I just use the imagery. The premise is still the same. use your own symbol. It could be a molecule, or any other form of existence. As long as the message gets across.

 

[NoTime]

I just use the imagery. The premise is still the same. use your own symbol. It could be a molecule, or any other form of existence. As long as the message gets across.

The haiku is actually pretty good

Personally, I am inclined to say that we are overdue for the next Omega point.
And I wonder why.

How silly are observers from the other side of the Omega going to think we are
Right up there with the Flat Earth and Celestial Spheres. I'm sure.

Enjoy