Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

iai.tv

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 326 posts

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#221

Post by effie »

ISL wrote: post #86

I strongly disagree that the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years. We have been looking really hard for answers to persistent questions. While we have not found affirmative answers, physicists have systematically ruled out option after option after option. We have not yet discovered a unified-theory-of-everything, but we know a whole lot more about what that theory is not . Furthermore, the past 40…

The things you mention may be useful to science and even help in evolving foundations of physics, but that hasn't happened yet. Ms. Hossenfelder talks about things such as internal consistency of quantum methodologies, consistency of QT and GRT and particle physics. There is no breakthrough in these questions for decades.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#222

Post by nonbel »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #154
Anon84 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time an experiment had a result that wasn’t explained by theory (supralumimal neutrinos aside)?

Some examples: Matter/anti-matter asymmetry, arrow of time direction, why CP violations, neutrino mass questions, why masses are what they are, dark matter and energy nature, what cancels out zero point energy, many structures on universe scale don't fit models, firewall paradox, why is gravity so weak, are there gravitons (other particles..), do magnetic monopoles exist (widely conjectured to work from models, none…

Matter/anti-matter asymmetry is expected to be present. It is a basic feature of individual random walk instances using symmetrical laws that about half will be dominated by matter and the other half dominated by antimatter for long periods of time (although the "universe" may pass through pure energy states as it switches between the two). While there is a balance on average and in the long run, there is not for individual instances or points in time.

We called the dominating one for our current instance/state of the universe "matter": https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/505662/why-is-ma...

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#223

Post by [deleted] »

throw0101a wrote: post #73
snowwrestler wrote: post #56

What actually is the foundation of physics? The observations or the theories? We believe, as an assumption (or nearly as a matter of orthodoxy) that there are simple universal laws that govern consistent natural phenomena. One could argue that that is the foundation of our science of physics in that if that wrong, the whole thing falls down. But that has not “progressed” and really should not change... which seems co…

> What actually is the foundation of physics? See Naturalism: > 1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[20][21] > 2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws;[20][21] > 3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[20][21] > 4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural…

[deleted]

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#224

Post by rpz »

rpz wrote: post #198
akubera wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't downvote, but they probably came because you asked a very tangential question to the subject. I'll try to answer it: I think you just want to move units around so h (Planck's constant) has units of Joules instead of Joule-seconds. While this works mathematically, it doesn't really make sense physically, where we care about the energy of a photon because that's the value that is conserved (along with momentum,…

Consider it this way. Suppose we all agreed to never use numerical values in the units section of an equation... then in this case we'd need a symbol for cycles in cycles per second aka Hz. If we leaves Planck's constant as is in E=h (cycle/second), then the units would end up as Joule cycle... odd right? That's what brought me to writing the formula as E=utf I guess it should really be Delta E=u(delta t)f where u is…

The upshot of what I'm saying here is that I believe that each wavelength of light is delivering the same quanta of energy regardless of frequency

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#225

Post by [deleted] »

cletus wrote: post #164

Does anyone else feel like the abstractions and models in physics have gone passed the point where the casual outsider (even a technically and scientifically minded one) can no longer intuitively understand it? Because that's how I feel. There are so many things I just don't understand now like: 1. I originally thought the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle was a natural consequence of using particles (photos) for meas…

[deleted]

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#226

Post by konschubert »

cygx wrote: post #218
konschubert wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An "interpretation of a theory" is not an "explanatory story, it's a way to map the equations ("shut up and calculate") to reality. It's not a contested notion that every theory needs an interpretation.

I would phrase things differently: The way to map a theory to reality is via its predictions. The interpretation is how the theory fits into my mental model of reality. In principle, reality could be strange enough that we are incapable of holding a good model of reality in our brains that evolved to avoid getting eaten by lions instead of doing quantum mechanics. I certainly hope that's not the case, but neither can…

I think you and me mean different things with “interpretation”.

> The way to map a theory to reality is via its predictions.

Agree, and I call this mapping an “interpretation”.

(I thought this was the general usage of the word in the scientific context, but I may be wrong.)

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#227

Post by empath75 »

cletus wrote: post #164

Does anyone else feel like the abstractions and models in physics have gone passed the point where the casual outsider (even a technically and scientifically minded one) can no longer intuitively understand it? Because that's how I feel. There are so many things I just don't understand now like: 1. I originally thought the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle was a natural consequence of using particles (photos) for meas…

> It's just that the models have gotten so complex (it seems?) that it just feels like something huge is missing

Why shouldn't it be complex? The universe is complex. It's amazing that it's so simple, really.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#228

Post by tom-thistime »

vkou wrote: post #174
cletus wrote: post #164

Does anyone else feel like the abstractions and models in physics have gone passed the point where the casual outsider (even a technically and scientifically minded one) can no longer intuitively understand it? Because that's how I feel. There are so many things I just don't understand now like: 1. I originally thought the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle was a natural consequence of using particles (photos) for meas…

The casual observer hasn't been able to understand the forefront of physics for a very long time. Maxwell's equations have been known for 150 years[1], but the average high school physics student hasn't the foggiest idea of what a differential equation is. At best, they have a vague understanding that electricity and magnetism are more-or-less interchangeable. Once you get into invisible forces acting across very sma…

Good point. I work on laser amplifiers, and I struggle to get clear on what Planck said in 1899. I'm definitely not caught up with where physics was in 1920.

Hearing casual observers talking about quarks or dark matter just makes me run the other way. I know I don't know.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#229

Post by pbhjpbhj »

nwallin wrote: post #165
ibeckermayer wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, though, the idea that we need to resolve inconsistencies is the correct diagnosis and shines a light on the incredible failure of the prevailing institutions. Take for example the idea that a photon is both a particle and a wave. This dogma has been force fed to students for decades without the glaring inconsistency being resolved, or even pointed to as a thing that needs resolving — something is either…

That inconsistency was subject to an immense amount of scrutiny by thousands of scientists for over a hundred years. Albert Einstein received a Nobel Prize for resolving the inconsistency. The theory that ultimately resolved it is called quantum mechanics. That's no longer an inconsistency. Better examples would be the inconsistencies between general relativity, which demands curved spacetime, and quantum mechanics,…

>which demands curved spacetime, and quantum mechanics, which prohibits curved space. //

That's not inconsistent [as you've framed it]: curved time.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#230

Post by red75prime »

tartoran wrote: post #207
Nition wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Translate on this fails almost completely but somehow turns it into a critique on the Internet Of Things: Thirty spokes, there is a hub. When it is free, it is used for cars. I think it is a device, when it is free, it is used for devices. Profit, useless.

I get something like this from google translate: Thirty spokes, a total of one hub, when it is not available, there is a car. I think that when there is no device, there is a use for it. The chisel owner thinks that when there is no room, there is room. Therefore, it is good to use it, but not to use it. "

I've got your translation variant for the text without quotes (「...」). Does the translation have a peculiar rhythm to it, or I'm imagining things?
Post reply on HN