Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong? • Hacker News Board

Re: Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

#41

Post by InclinedPlane » Thu, May 31, 2012, 6:44 AM UTC

pwang wrote: post #35

InclinedPlane wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but I find this to be quite laughable. Firstly, neither string theory or "gravity leakage" or more than 4 dimensions of space-time are even remotely accepted theories in physics or cosmology. The theory of dark matter is supported by many hugely disparate lines of evidence. It's the only theory that makes sense given all the evidence. As for the supposed superiority of biology, I…

> Firstly, neither string theory or "gravity leakage" or more than 4 dimensions of space-time are even remotely accepted theories in physics or cosmology. So tell me please: Why are people like Brian Greene able to obtain the funding to make TV series like http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html and get public speaking engagements like https://secure2.convio.net/ata/site/Ecommerce/3120701?VIEW_P...…

Are you implying that TV funding is tantamount to scientific authority? Are we to believe dragons and white walkers are accepted scientific fact along with mitochondrial eve being a cylon hybrid?

Don't be ridiculous.

Re: Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

#42

Post by InclinedPlane » Thu, May 31, 2012, 6:46 AM UTC

benwan wrote: post #38

InclinedPlane wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see that to be the case. Physicists have been giving their utmost to try to crack open the standard model and prove it wrong for decades. And the same is true elsewhere as well. We thought we had a pretty good grasp on the nature of the expansion of the Universe, but it turned out that the expansion is accelerating. That was a huge reformulation of cosmology. We thought we knew about planetary formation, but…

Black holes are not the only theory which fits the evidence we have. Simply add 2M to the first 2 r's in the Schwarzschild metric (the equation used to confirm black holes), and you get a metric that fits all the evidence but doesn't predict black holes, hence doesn't raise the black hole information loss paradox, and so isn't incompatible with quantum mechanics that way. That's well known in the cosmological communi…

We have evidence of luminous matter falling into a black hole and disappearing. What more do you want? What possible other non-black-hole theory fits that evidence?

Re: Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

#43

Post by chii » Thu, May 31, 2012, 8:06 AM UTC

iskander wrote: post #8

raverbashing wrote: post #2

The real problem is testing 'theories merging' There are several areas where relativity and quantum mechanics merged, for example, in the discovery and theory of antimatter But most of the experiments of relativity were on 'big things' like planets, and quantum mechanics on 'small things' And between them, the real mystery: gravity. General relativity knows a lot about what gravity does but not so much about where it…

s/Special relativity/General relativity Special relativity ignores gravity altogether, whereas general relativity sneaks gravity into the relativistic framework by equating it with curvature. Both theories are, to me, frustratingly intangible. Like you said, we don't really know where gravity comes from. Really, we don't even have any sort of good intuitions for how to describe what it is. Stuff resists being shoved…

> Both theories are, to me, frustratingly intangible

Yes, and it is frustrating. However, like you, a lot of laymen assumes that these theories can be explained in terms of analogies with "everyday life" things. I recently watched all of Richard Feynmen's lectures (the easiest to understand is "the character of physical law" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Character_of_Physical_Law),and in it, he explained, quite well, what it means to have a mathematical law. It goes on to some detail explanation of what quantum chromodynamics is, and how photons' behaviour cannot possibly be analogous to anything you can experience at the macro scale.

I understand your frustration (since i feel the exact same) - why is it that we have advanced so much, and yet still have no idea what inertia really is? Or mass for that matter. We know how to predict things from using various mathematical laws, but i think we are no closer to understanding "the truth", than 100 years ago. Perhaps it is impossible.

or perhaps, in the next century, or the next millenium, humans will look back, and see today's physics being just as primative as what we would see the cavemen's theories of the world is.

Re: Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

#44

Post by chii » Thu, May 31, 2012, 8:36 AM UTC

benwan wrote: post #37

daeken wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem here is that you're conflating the absence of evidence with the evidence of absence. There's definitely no definitive evidence for the existence of black holes, but (as far as I know) we have no evidence that contradicts current models. Science works by coming up with a nullifiable hypothesis, then seeing how it holds up as evidence is gathered. When you see contradictions, you adapt your model. I…

We have logical evidence that contradicts current models, namely the black hole information loss paradox, a real paradox.

i thought that was resolved - there isn't any information loss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

Re: Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

#45

Post by raverbashing » Thu, May 31, 2012, 10:17 AM UTC

argv_empty wrote: post #32

raverbashing wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Well, since 100% of "proofs" that the basic assumptions of modern physics are wrong over the last century have, in fact, come from crackpots it's a pretty good working assumption." Oh, please, which ones? Maybe the crackpots that challenged the notion that light is a wave and never behaves as a particle Or maybe the idiot that thought that massive objects can bend light. And yes, Albert Einstein was considered an id…

They only 'accept' the new ideas when the evidence is overwhelmingly in the favor of the new idea You say that like it's a bad thing.

There is a difference between saying "We don't know" and "this is wrong"

Without preponderance of evidence, the former would be more correct, but the latter is more prevalent.

It's very easy to reject things that need more research. Then IF it's researched more thoroughly and inconsistent with the theory THEN rejection is in order.

But instead, several research lines are rejected because of politics, 'playing it safe', etc

Re: Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

#46

Post by UnFleshedOne » Thu, May 31, 2012, 2:55 PM UTC

benwan wrote: post #39

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"By detecting very little energy from these black hole candidates, we have new proof that event horizons exist," said Michael Garcia of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA. "It's a bit odd to say we've discovered something by seeing almost nothing, but, in essence, this is what we have done." http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/as...

That makes the point you're replying to. "The most straightforward explanation for our observations is that these objects have event horizons and, therefore, are black holes." No, another even more straightforward explanation is that it's just an extremely dense object that's not a black hole. Even in Einstein's theory, an "almost black hole" suffices. Nothing mentioned in the article favors the former over the latte…

Without event horizon all the matter that spirals into it would emit a lot of EM radiation as it collides with the matter already there, converting kinetic energy into radiation. In this case they see matter spiraling in, but they don't see results of collision. So they conclude that no photons escape, and that's pretty much definition of event horizon.

Re: Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

#47

Post by UnFleshedOne » Thu, May 31, 2012, 2:59 PM UTC

benwan wrote: post #40

tybris wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all other sciences, if you find a model that predicts something as self-contradictory as a black hole or dark matter, you shrug, figure your assumptions are wrong, and start over. In physics you announce the splendiferous wonders of the universe.

Don't forget dark energy, also (like dark matter) invented to fit the observations. How many hundreds of $millions of taxpayer money will be spent searching for it? These inventions are keeping many scientists employed, it seems. If they went back to correct the mistakes (like any good software developer) there might be a mass layoff.

Just imagine the fame a researcher or a team would get should they explain dark matter by updating current theories (in a way that fits _all_other_explained_ observations). I don't think if anybody had a good idea they would care about mass layoffs.

Re: Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

#48

Post by benwan » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 2:43 AM UTC

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #46

benwan wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes the point you're replying to. "The most straightforward explanation for our observations is that these objects have event horizons and, therefore, are black holes." No, another even more straightforward explanation is that it's just an extremely dense object that's not a black hole. Even in Einstein's theory, an "almost black hole" suffices. Nothing mentioned in the article favors the former over the latte…

Without event horizon all the matter that spirals into it would emit a lot of EM radiation as it collides with the matter already there, converting kinetic energy into radiation. In this case they see matter spiraling in, but they don't see results of collision. So they conclude that no photons escape, and that's pretty much definition of event horizon.

No, if it was an "almost black hole" as predicted by general relativity, they wouldn't see EM radiation, due to gravitational time dilation. The "almost black hole" might emit a single photon only once every 100 years in our time.

Re: Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

#49

Post by benwan » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 2:46 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #44

benwan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have logical evidence that contradicts current models, namely the black hole information loss paradox, a real paradox.

i thought that was resolved - there isn't any information loss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

There's no resolution in that link. It's still an open issue. All the proposed solutions raise other serious problems, as the link info notes.

Re: Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

#50

Post by benwan » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 2:49 AM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #42

benwan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Black holes are not the only theory which fits the evidence we have. Simply add 2M to the first 2 r's in the Schwarzschild metric (the equation used to confirm black holes), and you get a metric that fits all the evidence but doesn't predict black holes, hence doesn't raise the black hole information loss paradox, and so isn't incompatible with quantum mechanics that way. That's well known in the cosmological communi…

We have evidence of luminous matter falling into a black hole and disappearing. What more do you want? What possible other non-black-hole theory fits that evidence?

An "almost black hole" also predicted by Einstein's theory predicts the same observation, as an effect of gravitational time dilation. The non-black-hole theory that fits the evidence is the tweak you replied to. As I said, it fits all the evidence.