I always think about how weird it is that science has been utterly incapable of figuring out what gravity even is and how it truly works. We have mathematical models, like general relativity, that describe what gravity does on large scales, but those are simply predictive models and don't necessarily describe the underlying reality of it. We know this because those models eat absolute shit when the gravitational field is extremely strong, like in a black hole.
Honestly, part of the problem is the development of science during the 20th century to be mechanistic rather than dialectical and the total idealism of modern science research in the last 20 years.
"What is space" and "what is time" are more metaphysical questions than physics ones. Doesn't mean they're not worthy of study and analysis! It gets weird when you talk about what a photon experiences, lol, it follows from time and length dilation that they don't "observe" any time and their origin and destination are overlaid.
Dialectics applied to the physical world is how we get how evolution actually works (punctuated equilibrium) or hints how quantum mechanics probably works (pilot wave).
Definitely strays into philosophical territory when you ask what something really is, but I tend to think there actually is a difference in many cases. This case specifically because general relativity is factually incomplete owing to its inability to reconcile with the standard model even before you get into the philosophy of it.
And I'm not a physicist so my opinion isn't very well informed, but the standard model has so many free parameters that can only be derived experimentally that I can't help but think we're dealing with epicycles all over again. That goes quadruple for string theory and the absurd number of vacuum permutations.
I certainly don't envy the state science was in for the thousands of years before we could even accurately model the motion of everyday objects, but on the other hand science is no longer relegated to rich fail sons dropping heavy objects and timing how quickly they fall. Now that there are vast numbers of extremely intelligent people dedicating their careers to figuring this out, you'd think we'd see faster progress. I guess we've just picked all the low hanging fruits by now.
See and that is where I disagree. In the U.S. we've gone from everyone with a potential interest in the hard sciences being able to take and afford taking the time to drop heavy objects and timing how quickly they fall, even if there is no obvious monetary value, BACK to only if you are a rich fail-son with an intense interest in the hard sciences can you take the time and money to drop heavy objects and timing how quickly they fall, but THIS TIME it is normally for a corporation to patent the gravitational formula.
We're literally in the middle of societal devolution.
I think it's the difference between having a model that explains why a thing is happening vs a model that simply predicts what will happen without truly knowing why it did. Approximating the output of a black box vs looking inside and understanding it's mechanisms
There's a level when you can say you understand a specific thing though. Like if gravity is explained by the interaction of quantum particles through spacetime, we could say we understand gravity. But the particles themselves might still be a black box. Of course you can always go one layer deeper
I always think about how weird it is that science has been utterly incapable of figuring out what gravity even is and how it truly works. We have mathematical models, like general relativity, that describe what gravity does on large scales, but those are simply predictive models and don't necessarily describe the underlying reality of it. We know this because those models eat absolute shit when the gravitational field is extremely strong, like in a black hole.
i dont think it's that weird that we're struggling with things that are waaaaaaay beyond human experience.
gravity for roughly human sized objects travelling at human-achievable speeds is "solved", no?
quantum-batshit is far from us, and thus hard. billions of years of expanding space is similar.
Honestly, part of the problem is the development of science during the 20th century to be mechanistic rather than dialectical and the total idealism of modern science research in the last 20 years.
"What is space" and "what is time" are more metaphysical questions than physics ones. Doesn't mean they're not worthy of study and analysis! It gets weird when you talk about what a photon experiences, lol, it follows from time and length dilation that they don't "observe" any time and their origin and destination are overlaid.
deleted by creator
Dialectics applied to the physical world is how we get how evolution actually works (punctuated equilibrium) or hints how quantum mechanics probably works (pilot wave).
deleted by creator
Teach me how!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Definitely strays into philosophical territory when you ask what something really is, but I tend to think there actually is a difference in many cases. This case specifically because general relativity is factually incomplete owing to its inability to reconcile with the standard model even before you get into the philosophy of it.
And I'm not a physicist so my opinion isn't very well informed, but the standard model has so many free parameters that can only be derived experimentally that I can't help but think we're dealing with epicycles all over again. That goes quadruple for string theory and the absurd number of vacuum permutations.
deleted by creator
Right, I just think it's weird how long we've been stuck on this same understanding.
deleted by creator
I certainly don't envy the state science was in for the thousands of years before we could even accurately model the motion of everyday objects, but on the other hand science is no longer relegated to rich fail sons dropping heavy objects and timing how quickly they fall. Now that there are vast numbers of extremely intelligent people dedicating their careers to figuring this out, you'd think we'd see faster progress. I guess we've just picked all the low hanging fruits by now.
See and that is where I disagree. In the U.S. we've gone from everyone with a potential interest in the hard sciences being able to take and afford taking the time to drop heavy objects and timing how quickly they fall, even if there is no obvious monetary value, BACK to only if you are a rich fail-son with an intense interest in the hard sciences can you take the time and money to drop heavy objects and timing how quickly they fall, but THIS TIME it is normally for a corporation to patent the gravitational formula.
We're literally in the middle of societal devolution.
Absolutely in the US, yes, but I was thinking about it from a more global perspective.
I think it's the difference between having a model that explains why a thing is happening vs a model that simply predicts what will happen without truly knowing why it did. Approximating the output of a black box vs looking inside and understanding it's mechanisms
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
There's a level when you can say you understand a specific thing though. Like if gravity is explained by the interaction of quantum particles through spacetime, we could say we understand gravity. But the particles themselves might still be a black box. Of course you can always go one layer deeper
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
things that you can look at plain sight or with a microscope is way easier