How much of modern physics is reliable and wont have to be unlearned in the future?
For comparison, Newtonian mechanics is not jnreliable and wont have to be unlearned, even if its not the whole truth, because it applies to cases in certain conditions. Now Im not a physics guy but much physics resukts today seems to be all about bandaids and patches attatches in a desperate attempt to keep a crumbling building standing, or papers that go stray with model building without solid foundations
>building a model that takes 3 caracteristics from our universe but ignores all others, we came to the conclusion that we could be living in an origami spinning backwards in time, its totally possible!
So my question is what modern subjects are safe and have solid foundations, even if they only apply to special cases like Newtonian physics, and what subjects are sketchy?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Quantum mechanics and Relativity are the two main theories in physics. Quantum mechanics has QFT which is extremely successful and capable of describing 3 fundamental forces. Whereas General Relativity is capable describing one fundamental force (gravity).
They both have a great amount of evidence and can make accurate predictions. However that's not the end of physics, you have a whole field of physics which accounts for phenomena and effects that have not been explained yet, this is called Physics beyond the Standard Model. This is for example, dark matter, dark energy, black holes beyond the event horizon and many many other stuff which modern physics and their theories still cannot explain what they are, how do they work, their origin etc...
Would it be possible hypothetically to send a probe inside a black hole?
t. moron
there are a lot of recent claims about the possibility of retrieving information from a black hole, so perhaps
Not him but can you explain what you mean? I haven't heard about that.
https://www.science.org/content/article/physicists-figure-out-how-retrieve-information-black-hole
>Chatwin-Davies stresses that the scheme is not a plan for a practical experiment. After all, it would require Alice to almost instantly measure the spin of a black hole as massive as the sun to within a single atom's spin. "We like to joke around that Alice is the most advanced scientist in the universe," he says.
that being said, perhaps I was a bit hasty in stating that you could send a probe into a black hole and recover its information, unless by probe you mean exactly two bits of information
>The scheme also has major limitations. In particular, as the authors note, it works for one quantum particle, but not for two or more. That's because the recipe exploits the fact that the black hole conserves angular momentum, so that its final spin is equal to its initial spin plus that of the electron. That trick enables Alice to get out exactly two bits of information—the total spin and its projection along one axis—and that's just enough information to specify the latitude and longitude of quantum state of one particle. But it's not nearly enough to recapture all the information trapped in a black hole, which typically forms when a star collapses upon itself.
Yes but given that nothing can escape, not even objects traveling at light speed, then you couldn't get any useful info from the probe after it's crossed the event horizon.
As far as we know, once you cross the event horizon, you're essentially deleted from the universe.
Why don't you tie two probes together and only let one cross over the event horizon? When the probing mission is done the probes can pull each other out
Because the probe on the inside will either pull the outside probe into the black hole, or snap the wire in two at the event horizon.
Nothing comes out once it's inside.
And before you ask
>What if you transmit the data through the wire to the outer probe
If you try to use the wire as an electrical cable to send data to a probe on the outside, the electrical signals will not travel out of the event horizon, because that signal would have to physically travel down the wire faster than light to reach the outer probe.
see:
thanks to quantum entanglement, 2 bits of information can still theoretically be extracted
to what end are za jooz lying about space, anon?
The Juice lies about everything.
I ask again— to what end?
Enslaving us subtly.
>enslaving us subtly
Did you mean killing me softly?
no i mean you're a gringo papi
Are you supposed to be the "real science" side? If so why you don't have any model that's supported by mountains of evidence, ah right you can't have that because you are literally just a bullshitter
Relativity is a band-aid for Newtonian mechanics. So if you reject relativity because of dark matter thing, then you must reject Newtonian mechanics as well.
Newtonian mechanics isn't not unreliable, it's the most reliable physics. All other models of physics have to validate Newtonian mechanics at some point. All the other models are additional assumptions onto Newtonian mechanics.
A Newtonian model of a phenomenon is invaluable even in the age of quantum mechanics and relativity, because a purely mechanical model is forever, as it is made with the least possible assumptions to still have mechanics.
So continuum+statistical mechanics will never be unlearned and can only grow in importance over time.
Next is quantum mechanics, when actually applied. The most quantum mechanics can be perturbed is by fixing an interpretation and the adoption of a subquantum theory. Even if perspectives will shift, overall it is what it is.
So, combining with the above answer, if there's anything to be unlearned in condensed matter physics, it's not much.
OTOH all geometric physics is garbage, and gauge theory is already a failed theory in denial. Parts will survive for sure but not all, and certainly not with the original intuition, so it will be unlearned as a whole.
>Newtonian mechanics isn't not unreliable
>isn't not unreliable
>isn't
>not
>un-
>OP
>Newtonian mechanics is not unreliable
>the answer
>Newtonian mechanics isn't just "not unreliable", it's the most reliable
Globe earth theory technically works but it's mostly pointless and serves as a red herring to distract people
Considering that General Relativity has length contraction just to explain the results of the Michelson Morley experiment, and that there is no explanation for Airy's Failure other than the current dogma being incorrect...
>Very Likely.
If you want an education in real, scientific physics I recommend: Classical mechanics, optics, fluid dynamics, and Weber's electrodynamics. For quantum mechanics there's no good resource but if you study Sommerfeld you'll at least be less worse off than with a more modern treatment. Generally speaking, try to avoid books that are heavy on theory and stick to one that describe experimental results. I've found certain history books to be better sources on physics than textbooks.
Can you reccomend me some books anon? I liked your answer
Here you go, anon. The scientific physics reading list (in rough order of importance):
Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems by Thornton and Marion.
Weber’s Electrodynamics by Andre Assis.
Atomic Structure and Spectral Lines by Arnold Sommerfeld (3rd edition).
JP Wesley (papers, books if you can find them).
Discussions on Refraction of Light by L.V. Tarsasov.
Strength of Materials by Hartog, because you should know some practical shit and not be a completely feckless academic.
Laser Age in Physics by L.V. Tarasov, same reason.
Introduction to Fluid Mechanics by Y. Nakayama.
The Geometry of celestial Mechanics by Geiges.
Pushing Gravity by Matthew Edwards.
The Expanding Earth by Degezelle Marvin, not because it’s physics, but because it’s related to Le Sage gravity and you should know this is happening.
Entropy Demystified by Arieh Ben-Naim.
Seeing Red by Halton Arp.
Introduction to the Structure of Matter by Brehm, not because anything in it is correct, but because it’s a good overview of modern quantum theory without too much schizobabble.
The Quantum Physicists by William Cropper, mostly for historical context.
How the Universe Works by Serge Parnovsky. Everything in this book is complete junk, but at least it’s a readable overview of modern cosmology.
good list
I'd add to that:
Electric Discharges,Waves And Impulses by Charles P. Steinmetz
The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner
Thats more than I bargained for, thanks for all the care you put in this response anon! I will check them out
Thanks too!
This unironically. FRICK "Theoretical Physics".
If it isn't useful in engineering, it's merely schizo babble.
>t. Mathematician
>If it isn't useful in engineering, it's merely schizo babble
>t. Mathematician
what's it like to be unable to appreciate elegance?
>modern physics
>elegance
Jesus Christ that's a low bar
whats elegant about flailing and around accomplishing nothing of any value during a half century long career in science? whats elegant about making up cringey lies to justify a failed career? elegance would accomplish a lot while making it look like little effort. what you are trying to describe as elegant is the polar opposite.
elgance was the wright brothers inventing the airplane on a budget of less than $100 after the smithsonian institute had wasted several million on government employed harvard boys' failures over the course of a decade. the wrights' plane flew exactly as designed on it's first test flight, they barely even broke a sweat making the phd science professionals look like clowns.
Modern physics is some of the ugliest mathematics ever conceived. What's elegant about layers upon layers of ugly ad hoc mathematical hacks to salvage a failed theory from collapse? What's elegant about literal mathematical duct tape to hold wholly dissonant theories together? What's elegant about the need to postulate multiple dimensions and parallel universes, to explain a single universe of 3+1 dimensions?
You wouldn't recognize mathematical elegance even if it hit you in the face.
Yeah, but you misunderstand the fundamental difference between physics and math. Math exists to prove shit. Physics exists to explain. As far as Physics is concerned, if the numbers printing out on the screen match what you physically observed, then the theory is correct. Stop trying to hold Physics to the standard of Math, they're not the same.
>If it isn't useful in engineering, it's merely schizo babble
>"what's it like to be unable to appreciate elegance?"
>modern physics is some of the ugliest mathematics ever conceived
>"yeah but it's so useful tho"
I understand moving the goalpost, but to the same place it was before, really?
Wat. What physics isn't elegant?
Give us an example
>blocks your path
Yes, Math is the real Physics of the Universe
>some israelite spooks himself with the symbols he wrote and manipulates on paper in analogy with nature
>AHH! HOW CAN IT WORK SO WELL!! MATHEMATICS IS SO MYSTERIOUS!!!
And it has also nothing to do with the supposed elegance of modern physics.
In fact, when physicists let the "unreasonably effective" mathematics do all the work in their field, is when it fully became "modern physics".
The real "Unreasonable Effectiveness in the Natural Sciences" is mechanical analogies, but that's actually completely reasonable.
The only elegant mathematics there ever was in physics is in classical physics.
>when physicists let the "unreasonably effective" mathematics do all the work in their field, is when it fully became "modern physics"
yes, exactly
that's the point, mathematics appear to describe nature so well precisely because nature is a mathematical construct at its very core
this is of course starting to become more and more obvious, since even the most fundamental abstractions we have, like "fundamental particles" are all defined in terms of how they interact with other such abstractions, and as such what is being described is essentially mathematical
the big mistake would rather be to start thinking of mathematics as describing anything "by analogy", because that's the diametric opposite of what's going on
>yes, exactly
>that's the point
Yes, exactly.
That's the point, when modern physics adopted the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" as a guiding principle for theory, supplanting the older "overwhelmingly reasonable effectiveness of mechanics", is the precise moment when theoretical physics became "unreasonably uneffective" at being of any use except as a generator of published papers, PhDs and grant funding.
No amount of "look at how butiful it is!" and "but it's so mysterious tho!" can change that.
Because it's neither beautiful, since the math of modern physics is ugly as shit compared to classical physics, nor mysterious, unless you're a midwit mesmerized by tautological algebraic manipulations, like those that dress and ornate the meat of QM, SR and above.
You're not discovering the secrets of the universe by manipulating the logical matter it is composed of, you're mentally jerking off over paper and ink, and the written symbols that you invented in analogy of what you observe nature to act.
Fapping to anime is to sex, as mathematics is to nature.
now you're getting yourself mixed up
what was reasonable about mechanics was how unreasonably effective mathematics was at describing it
in hindsight that's obvious for the reasons stated above, i.e. how nature by necessity must be mathematical at its very core, since it's about relations and interactions
theoretical physics has never become ineffective at all, it continue to lead to technological breakthroughs constantly
it's not about being "beautiful" or "mysterious", the mathematical nature of reality simply is what it is
whether you think it's beautiful and mysterious, that's on you, that's all in the eye of the beholder
I personally do find contemporary physics quite beautiful in many ways, especially the geometries inherent to quantum mechanics
>not discovering the secrets of the universe by manipulating the logical matter it is composed of
that's pretty much exactly what you're doing
>written symbols that you invented in analogy
again with the fallacious claim about the symbols being "invented in analogy"
once more, that's the diametric opposite of the truth, the symbols are not analogous at all, it's reality which is inherently mathematical
Wrong.
What was reasonable about mechanics was how it reasonably described nature effectively.
Mathematics, symbols on paper manipulated according to rules that we invented in analogy to the observed workings of nature, also worked reasonably to describe mechanics.
You can get platonic about why analogy should work at all, but then you'd forget that even the best models break when their "ideal" assumptions are violated "in practice". Ideals are approximations of reality, not reality of ideals.
If this were not true, then each new theoretical breakthrough should've led to a revolution in engineering, too.
On the contrary, blackholes have brought nothing, quarks have brought nothing, SUSY will bring nothing. Quantum computers will always be vaporware, exploited to funnel the money of tax payers into grant funding.
"Out there ideas" and developments in electrodynamics gave us the widespread availability of easy-to-exploit electric energy, the radio, the telephone, electrodomestics in general, and electronics, microcontrollers, transistors, computers.
"Out there ideas" and developments in relativity gave us useless vaporware on one hand, and recognized as meaningless by theorists themselves on the other.
Superluminal drives fueled by exotic matter, closed timelike curves, tachyonic telephones, wormholes, quantum immortality, many-worlds. Your mathematics is so unreasonably effective that it can't even rule out these unphysical solutions, without the arbitrary HUMAN intervention of theorists to proclaim them as bunk.
Nature is so inherently mathematical that it needs human arbitrage to decide what mathematics is allowed or not allowed to say. I guess, by that logic, that consciousness really is at the center of reality, if even mathematics herself has to bow down to our say. Hurray for Copenhagen!
wrong
what was reasonable about mechanics was how mathematics described it perfectly
>invented in analogy
keep being wrong, I guess
>why analogy should work at all
it doesn't
fact is that reality itself is a mathematical structure
it's that simple
>models
mathematics is not a "model" of reality, reality is mathematical at its core
>then each new theoretical breakthrough should've led to a revolution in engineering, too
that's exactly what's happening for the most part, theoretical physics have led to so much technology that it's getting difficult to keep up
>Quantum computers will always be vaporware, exploited to funnel the money of tax payers into grant funding.
imagine being this level of ignorant
until this point I thought I was dealing with someone reasonable
as a computer engineer, I happen to know quite a bit about quantum computers and quantum computation in general, and it's anything other than vaporware, it's a technological breakthrough beyond anything most people currently comprehend
>unphysical solutions
there's nothing unphysical about several of the things you listed
people were screaming "unphysical" about virtually every single theoretical technology that has ever been invented before it was
>Nature is so inherently mathematical that it needs human arbitrage to decide what mathematics is allowed or not allowed to say.
wrong, all humans can do is discover exactly which mathematics nature is built upon
>there's nothing unphysical about several of the things you listed
>people were screaming "unphysical" about virtually every single theoretical technology that has ever been invented before it was
This is the core of the discussion. Can't help you, if you prefer to believe in the science fiction universe (or multiverse, if such). It falls under freedom of religion, I guess.
I don't need your help with anything, I clearly have a much better understanding of reality than you have
there's nothing religious about anything I'm saying, it's all in perfect agreement with everything we know
>mathematics is not a "model" of reality, reality is mathematical at its core
no it isn't, modern mathematics is all developed around the cartesian coordinate system, which is an inaccurate model in a universe where all space and time is irregularly warped rather than strictly spaced in a linear, even, regular fashion like in the coordinate system which all mathematics relies on.
for example, there is nowhere in this universe where the pythagorean theorem hold true, because there is no flat space anywhere, the pythagorean theorem is only legitimate in your imagination, yet vast portions of math rely on the pythagorean theorem as if it were gospel.
>frame of reference isn't a thing in science
>no it isn't
yes, it is
reality is a mathematical structure
>modern mathematics is all developed around the cartesian coordinate system
until this point I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt, but now it's clear to me that you really have no idea what you're talking about
modern mathematics use a wide variety of coordinate systems in many different contexts, but ultimately what describes the mathematical structure of reality isn't actually a coordinate system at all
>all space and time is irregularly warped
imagine clinging to the hilariously wrong notion of general relativity this hard
space and time themselves don't have any qualities, they are measures
>there is nowhere in this universe where the pythagorean theorem hold true
in the fabric of ultimate reality, that is actually correct, since there is no coordinate system there at all
however, you must distinguish between the mathematics that ultimate reality is built on and higher-order mathematics used to describe approximations on macroscopic scales
while the latter aren't fundamental, they are still useful
And to understand them, in the last few decades, we have turned back to mechanical analogues of these "wildly, irreconciliably nonclassical theories".
So we study acoustic blackholes now, and compare the Maxwell equations to the Navier-Stokes equations, and we use the similarity and dissimilarity of quantum condensed matter physics (which I could've conceeded you as a point of usefulness of QM if not for this) with classical as a way to understand better the former, not the other way around.
So which one was more "effective", the "unreasonably" mathematical approach, that begat all these questions, or the "reasonable" return to the mechanical, that we're slowly but surely readopting to get some concrete and useful answer on them?
You're simply looking for an excuse to inject mysticism into what is completely clear, reasonable, plain, perspicuous, fathomable, evident and transparent. It's the return of numerology, advanced numerology, that has learnt how to hide its ultimate meaninglessness better.
And if you find a patchwork of ideas held together by duct tape, then good for you I guess, but that doesn't mean that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It means that you have bad tastes in aesthetics.
Gauge theory is literally the mathematics of the irrelevant, misguided since the electromagnetic potentials are physical and don't need to be gauged. "its purtty tho so we'll salvage it every way we can". "Pretty theory" has priority over simplicity.
The utter mystification of infinitesimal rotations through Lie algebra.
Noether's theorem is trivial shit and it's heralded as the best ever, and the source of all the pointless masturbation around "symmetry" that also justifies gauge theory.
Clifford algebras are the only thing that has potential to be beautiful, and yet they're widely given the gayest treatment possible to adequate it to the ugliness and crypticism of the surrounding mathematics.
Like 2% maybe, who the frick thinks learning physics is worthwhile. Just learn Math and Statistics
Maths is divine
Statistics is trash
It's schizo math that oddly delivers
>An engineering degree went from having a half life of 35 years in ca. 1930 to about 10 years in 1960.
String theory will get a small rewamp, but everything else will stay.
Physicist like the idea that current theories will only get upgrades, sort of like relativity was to the newtonian theory of gravity, but actually nothing is sacred and nothing is safe, we can always build something from the ground up that will be more accurate, its just a matter of how out of the box we can get, somewhat unfortunately people after long education usually wont go out of the box too much and people without it lack a lot of basics to build something viable.