Does anybody believe in Physics?

[poker-penguin]

I don't mean the really basic ideas that people can pretty much see are true - things fall down, etc. That stuff seems pretty obvious, and any fairly intelligent person can probably work out for themselves that momentum = Mass * Velocity (or whatever it actually is).

I don't even mean fairly advanced physics involving "lasers" (doctor evil moment there). Stuff we can see the results of (the CD player is pretty good proof that lasers can read information from a properly encoded disc) is either science or magic, and in lieu of any evidence to the contrary, I'm sticking with science for now.

I'm talking about the quantum astro-physics that Steven Hawkings and maybe a few dozen other people in the world claim to understand. You know, academic papers that start "quasinova black holes invert quarks under small universe theory" and then have eight pages of math that makes my brain hurt before stating "QED".

Really, this stuff has no effect on our lives and has no possibility of empirical proof. By that I mean that outside of the mathematical system "they" have established, advanced astro-physics we have no way of proving or disproving anything.

Does anyone outside the little Math Role Playing Game really believe that these guys are explaining anything? If so, why?

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean the really basic ideas that people can pretty much see are true - things fall down, etc. That stuff seems pretty obvious, and any fairly intelligent person can probably work out for themselves that momentum = Mass * Velocity (or whatever it actually is).

I don't even mean fairly advanced physics involving "lasers" (doctor evil moment there). Stuff we can see the results of (the CD player is pretty good proof that lasers can read information from a properly encoded disc) is either science or magic, and in lieu of any evidence to the contrary, I'm sticking with science for now.

I'm talking about the quantum astro-physics that Steven Hawkings and maybe a few dozen other people in the world claim to understand. You know, academic papers that start "quasinova black holes invert quarks under small universe theory" and then have eight pages of math that makes my brain hurt before stating "QED".

Really, this stuff has no effect on our lives and has no possibility of empirical proof. By that I mean that outside of the mathematical system "they" have established, advanced astro-physics we have no way of proving or disproving anything.

Does anyone outside the little Math Role Playing Game really believe that these guys are explaining anything? If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Furthermore, if some guy hadn't been playing around with point contacts in 1948 then we wouldnt be conversing right now because there would be no computers and no solid state transistors right now. At that time very few people understood anything about solid state physics. Do you understand Bloch's theorem, Enegy band bending, or the basis of a PN junction? Does that mean that it was unimportant? Does that mean that it was useless? Physicists out on the edge cared and thats why we have computers.

I would submit that it is more likely that you are closed minded to things that you don't understand.

People study physics because understanding things like Astrophysics helps us to understand our origins and the world around us. Physics helps us to explain the world around us. Better knowing what makes the world tick can come out in some very suprising and usefull ways, ie, computers, cars, cell phones. Dont knock something just because you dont see the immediate impact right now.

Greg

[gulebjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about the quantum astro-physics that Steven Hawkings and maybe a few dozen other people in the world claim to understand.
Really, this stuff has no effect on our lives and has no possibility of empirical proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true. The Manhattan project was just a crapload of TNT. Nuclear Power Plants don't exist, except in the Simpsons. Electricity is actually being produced by thousands of monkeys riding small bicycles. They do not want us to know because animal rights hippies would go mad.

[fnord_too]

You do understand that physics is a science, and that scientific theoies are not proven, merely supported or not supported by experimentation, right?

From you post, it really does not sound like you understand the basic scientific method.

You may be blurring math and science in your head. Math is not science. It assumes certain axioms and derives implications given that the axioms are true. For example, you probably know that the interior angles in a triangle sum to 180 degrees. You may not know that is a result of Euclids fifth postulate. (An equivalent of Euclid's fifth postulate is "Given a line A and a point P not on A, there is exactly one line through P that is parallel to A in the plane defined by A and P"). Even Euclid was a bit leary about this postulate and put off including any proofs that depended on it in his books of proofs as long as he could. (The Elements are not his original proofs by the way, he collected the proofs and edited and arranged them in the books, but I digress). At any rate, if you ignore Euclids fifth postulate, you get some interesting results. Two consistant geometries, spherical and hyperbolic, do not have triangles whos interior angles sum to 180 degrees. (On a small scale, these two and Euclidean geometery all look the same). As far as I know, the actual geometry of the universe is an open question.

At any rate, when you ask "do you believe in Physics," I am not quite sure what you are asking, and I don't think you are sure, either. I will say that if you think there is no empirical evidence to support a lot of the generally accepted theories, you are wrong.

[PairTheBoard]

poker_penguin -

"Does anyone outside the little Math Role Playing Game really believe that these guys are explaining anything? If so, why? "

The key word here is "EXPLAIN". Science provides "models" which organize experimental data. The models can be worked on mathematically and extended independently of experimental data. Models are most valuable when their theoretical extensions inspire new experiments whose new results confirm the predictions of the extensions. When this happens the models give us a "sense" that they are "explaining" reality. This is as far as most people go in their understanding of what science does.

The problem with viewing the scientific model as an explanation arises when the model is superceded by a better one. For example, consider the old model of the Solar System constructed centuries ago which consisted of a clockwork miniature of the Sun with Planets revolving around it. This was a valid scientific model. It could predict with some accuracy where planets would be in the near future. It wasn't a very good model. It could not be easily extended theoretically. But it did organize data and gave some sense of explaining what was going on in the sky - at least to people with a flat earth mentality. But did the model really "explain" things?

When Newton came out with his Theory of Gravity the Old Model was suddenly exposed as naive. Gravity explained why the planets moved as they did. His theory also had greater predictive powers and could be worked on mathematically. But did it really "explain" things?

Einstein came along and superceded Newton with a theory for why gravity works. But did Einstein really "explain" things? And is his model the only one that can give such a nice explanation for gravity?

Quantum Physics has arose to explain How things work at subatomic levels. imo, it is at a similiar stage as the old clockwork miniature solar system. It organizes data but does little to explain why things are happening as they do. Some think String theory will provide such an explanation.

Here's the thing. These models give us a "sense" of understanding, a "sense" that things are being explained. But I don't think they really explain things. Suppose an Alien race developed entirely different concepts which did even an even better job of organizing data and predicting new results? Where does that leave us with our "explanations". imo, we should see science for what it is, a valuable tool. But it's not worth making a religion out of.

PairTheBoard

[Bodhi]

Sure, lots of people do. They're called Realists in the philosophy of science. Realism entails two claims: 1. that there is referential continuity across theory change over the history of science; 2. that our theories are becoming more and more approximately true.

I don't believe #1, and I don't think #2 is knowable. Still, science does great things and gives great explanations. You needn't take what it says about theoretical entities to be litterally true in order to appreciate science and its methods, which is called Instrumentalism.

First and foremost, any anti-realist or instrumentalist must defeat the No Miracles Argument, which says that there are no miracles and consequently science must getting darn near the truth in order for there to be so many practical successes. Think about it.

P.S. I don't think it's obvious that the Scientists you speak of are Realists.

[Bodhi]

Your reply to the OP is naive. There are lots and lots of physicists who don't Believe (with a capital "b") in the theoretical entities they postulate. Read Duhem for some historical perspective.

[Bodhi]

Right, but there are lot of theories that have empirical equivalents, and there's not always a way to decide which theory is better. The OP is waxing philosophical, and for some reason I'm the only one here who seems to understand that.

[PairTheBoard]

bodhi -
"First and foremost, any anti-realist or instrumentalist must defeat the No Miracles Argument, which says that there are no miracles and consequently science must getting darn near the truth in order for there to be so many practical successes. Think about it."

Could you explain this a little more bodhi? I don't see why there must be "miracles" in order to argue that theoretical entities are not literally true.

Edited to include bodhi's later statement:

In fact, isn't your statement in a later post that there can be empirically equivalent theories a sufficient argument in itself against realism?

PairTheBoard

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP is waxing philosophical, and for some reason I'm the only one here who seems to understand that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am guilty of waxing philosophical (although it all started with a vaguely amusing idea stemming from my mis-read of the Psychics thread title).

Any misunderstandings are probably my fault, my opening post was not exactly well written. I've also been reading some Philip Dick stories (particularly the one in which maths is proved to have no basis in reality) and The Onion articles (fictionolgy) recently.

For the record, I never intended to say that hard-science isn't useful. I was interested more in people who believe in science - especially since these are usually the people who think that believing in a deity is foolish.

PTB has caught my general drift with his comments on our need to explain things to impose a sense of order on the universe. It's present in human society as far back as I know of. Questions like "Where did the universe come from?" have preoccupied people for a long time.

In some ways, "First there was nothing, then it exploded" only makes sense in the same way that "In the begining the was the word..." or "Under Ymir's left arm grew a man and a woman and one of his legs begot a son with the other, and this is where ogres came from". It makes sense because we need it to.

Sure, saying that the universe started in some sort of Big Bang sounds more rational than talking about a giant frost orge's armpit. But only to us.

I think it was Arthur C Clarke who had some sort of saying that sufficiently advanced technology was effectively magic. I also think that hard-science has progressed to this point.

In other words, the increase in the complexity of what scientists think they understand about the world has outpaced the increase in complexity of what the general public think they understand, and this is producing a close to magical effect.

Or something.

I think I need to get stoned, and sit around talking about how maybe we're a tiny atom in a giant's toenail, and maybe there's a universe in our toenail.