What If Our Understanding of Physics Is Fundamentally Flawed?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bobster
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of scientific understanding in physics, particularly the possibility that current theories may be fundamentally flawed. Participants explore the implications of past scientific revolutions and the potential for future discoveries that could challenge established concepts. The conversation touches on theoretical frameworks, measurement independence, and the philosophical aspects of scientific inquiry.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that our current understanding of physics may be limited or flawed, suggesting that future discoveries could radically alter our perspective.
  • Others argue that the development of theories such as Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics demonstrates the historical tendency for scientific paradigms to shift, indicating that current theories may also be subject to revision.
  • A participant challenges the idea that measurement methods are influenced by theoretical frameworks, asserting that they are independent of the theories themselves.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes the importance of asking the right questions in science, suggesting that the pursuit of knowledge is ongoing and that there will always be more to discover.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the notion that physics could reach a point of completeness, arguing that there will always be unknowns and new phenomena to explore.
  • There is a contention regarding the validity of classical physics, with some asserting that it has been fundamentally overturned by modern theories, while others defend its relevance in predicting everyday phenomena.
  • A later reply emphasizes the necessity for scientific theories to accurately predict measurements, arguing that this is a critical criterion for their validity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement. While there is a shared recognition of the historical shifts in scientific understanding, opinions diverge on the implications for current theories and the nature of measurement in physics. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent to which classical physics is considered valid or obsolete.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in current theories, including their ability to account for all phenomena and the potential for new discoveries to challenge established concepts. There is also an acknowledgment of the dependence on definitions and the evolving nature of scientific inquiry.

  • #31
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Zantra said:
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.
 
  • #33
Royce said:
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..
 
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
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.
 
  • #36
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..
 
  • #37
NoTime said:
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 ?
 
  • #38
Zantra said:
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?
 
  • #39
NoTime said:
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.
 
  • #40
Zantra said:
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 :smile:

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 :rolleyes:
Right up there with the Flat Earth and Celestial Spheres. I'm sure.

Enjoy
 

Similar threads

Graduate 25 Years of the End of Science (or at least the end of physics?)
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
Graduate Does the Universe have a finite number of fundamentals to uncover?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Nominations Welcomed for Fundamental Physics Prize
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate What would it mean if symmetries in physics would not be fundamental?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Are fields' reality only a relative one?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
649
What causes the asymmetry in a symmetrically developing organism?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
How to switch from engineering with unknown undergrad name to Physics?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
High School Guidance on Physics Extended Project Qualification
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Admissions Advice on how best to spend my time for graduate school applications
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Studying High-Functioning Autistic Adult - how to find graduate tutors?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K