Why are there so many unsolved problems in physics?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: SERC: Forests are growing faster, climate change appears to driving accelerated growth
Next: 'Marshall' is a disgusting troll
From: Ace0f_5pades on 4 Feb 2010 17:15 On Feb 5, 1:20 am, "Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > It would be interesting to know who the general public trusts most these > days? Scientists or politicians? Thats an interesting & serious question that at one time would never have been asked. The recent data fixing disclosures didn't help the cause much. but on the whole, the doctors I know are fantastic advocates of their chosen fields. > > If science has a bad image with Koe public is it any wonder politicians have > no incentive to fund it? Are there any votes in science? vote -- Science 1 -- poiticians 0 actually, I'd be surprised if you got 1 vote for politicians (especially politician from the USA (thats right--the general perception; there are politicians, and then there are politicians)), and go as far as to accuse any1 that voted in their favour as being 1. lol.
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Feb 2010 18:14 On 2/4/10 3:49 PM, Paul Stowe wrote: > On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion<blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics >> >> Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously >> wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we >> just overcomplicating things? > > Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our current > approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model domains, but in > understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. It's like > the tale of the three blind men groping and trying to describe an > Elephant. GR& SR don't describe nature they describe certain > behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no attempt to understand > what brings that behavior about. Likewise, QM, QED, QCD do the same. > It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too arrogant > and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the proper > answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to rethink > fundamental premises. And, that is precisely what will be required to > begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer > Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known > alternative model of gravity. > > Good luck in getting any cogent answer here. > > Regards, > > Paul Stowe Imagine what it was like 200 years ago.
From: Paul Stowe on 4 Feb 2010 19:23 On Feb 4, 3:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/4/10 3:49 PM, Paul Stowe wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion<blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > >> Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously > >> wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we > >> just overcomplicating things? > > > Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our current > > approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model domains, but in > > understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. It's like > > the tale of the three blind men groping and trying to describe an > > Elephant. GR& SR don't describe nature they describe certain > > behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no attempt to understand > > what brings that behavior about. Likewise, QM, QED, QCD do the same. > > It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too arrogant > > and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the proper > > answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to rethink > > fundamental premises. And, that is precisely what will be required to > > begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer > > Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known > > alternative model of gravity. > > > Good luck in getting any cogent answer here. > > > Regards, > > > Paul Stowe > > Imagine what it was like 200 years ago. One does not have to imagine, read Whittaker's work... While knowledge was certainly less, and human nature was the same, making a living as a scientist was all but unknown. Thus the pursuit of science was, circa 1810, more of a gentleman's endeavor, not trying to get funding and paychecks. It was a different time, with different decorum and behavior.
From: Mike Jr on 4 Feb 2010 19:36 On Feb 4, 10:44 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: [snip] I have always (well since my college days) been curious how the universe managed to start in such a low entropy state. I have read that the universe started in a tiny box, just one part in 10**(10**123) of the entire phase-space volume. How did that happen? I agree that if science can't make contact with experiment then it is not science at all but rather philosophy, fiction. or religion. --Mike Jr.
From: eric gisse on 5 Feb 2010 00:44
Paul Stowe wrote: > On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics >> >> Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously >> wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we >> just overcomplicating things? > > Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our current > approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model domains, but in > understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. It's like > the tale of the three blind men groping and trying to describe an > Elephant. GR & SR don't describe nature they describe certain > behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no attempt to understand > what brings that behavior about. Likewise, QM, QED, QCD do the same. General relativity and quantum theory exactly - to all available precision - describe their respective domains of applicability. You can scream all you want about how the map is not the territory, and the people who actually know this stuff will mutter "duh" and move on to actually figuring stuff out. > It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too arrogant > and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the proper > answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to rethink > fundamental premises. While you are the model of zen-like contemplation who always considers opinions that aren't his own? Both descriptions are completely wrong. Physicists routinely test their hypotheses, otherwise it wouldn't be science. Let's focus on the big bang theory, since you rail on it constantly. Have you read the papers that discuss how the CMBR is shown to be of higher temperature at higher redshifts in a manner that exactly corresponds with orthodox theory? Have you read the papers that describe how the expansion hypothesis has been directly tested by observing the falloff in luminosity as a function of redshift? Have you read any papers on the subject recently? At all? Or are you content in your opinion as well as your own arrogance? Let's see if you can name one aspect of the big bang theory that has not been tested. > And, that is precisely what will be required to > begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer > Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known > alternative model of gravity. Ah, and which 'alternative model of gravity' would that be? And would the effect be the one of Anderson et.al., or the one that survives 1/3 smaller with approximate thermal modeling for a portion of the trip done by Turyshev, et.al. ? If any of this is news to you, perhaps you aren't nearly as interested in learning about the world we live in as you wish us to believe. > > Good luck in getting any cogent answer here. Probably because this is a USENET newsgroup that has no requirement for its' participants to be educated in the subjects they wish to rant and scream about. Case in point - have you formally studied physics? > > Regards, > > Paul Stowe |