Protons do decay over very large time scales (being tested now)
Nothing of the sort for electrons AFAIK. Positrons annihilate with electrons and dont last long.
What makes particles stick?
- Thread starter CaptainComedy
- Start date
Protons do decay over very large time scales (being tested now)
Nothing of the sort for electrons AFAIK. Positrons annihilate with electrons and dont last long.
Yep i'm with you there daz, and that concept, I think minto was getting more the point I was trying to understand, even if I didn't express myself very well!
We're getting to the point where it's a model that fits the observations, though not necessarily fully understood. Certainly not by me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
I don't think the universe can be understood; ultimately the it works how it works and that's that. There'll always be a level at which you can no longer break the laws down any further.
Take every day mechanics, for example. Most people are pretty familiar with it, but we don't know why mechanical systems behave in the way they do
Thats about as nicely as it can be put. Although one needs to look at quantum field theory to properly understand that statement.
sid
We can describe electromagentic fields incredibly well - since Maxwell's equations in Victiorian times in fact... but understanding why something is the way it is totally different.
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 3,762
- Location
- My fabulous ship
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
We can describe electromagentic fields incredibly well - since Maxwell's equations in Victiorian times in fact... but understanding why something is the way it is totally different.
And this illustrates perfectly that the purpose of science is to describe rather than to explain
And this illustrates perfectly that the purpose of science is to describe rather than to explain
I'd like to disagree there, Lots of things are explained pretty well.
I'm off now though, no time for a debate.
sid
We can describe electromagentic fields incredibly well - since Maxwell's equations in Victiorian times in fact... but understanding why something is the way it is totally different.
That is the question then, isn't it. The ultimate goal, this 'theory of everything' as it's loosely described. Now, to move into the realms of philosophy, perhaps we can never understand a definitive answer to the origins of our existence. When does the understanding stop? Surely one question answered leads to another question? It's probably beyond our capability of understanding and perception of the universe to truly realise it's nature. Still, we do our best eh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
Well you can explain larger-scale phenomena in terms of smaller-scale ones, but at some point these phenomena and the laws that govern them become irreducible and we must simply accept them as fact without explanation. Alternatively we can continue the process of reduction ad infinitum, but that still won't tell us "why".
Unless a bearded man descends from the heavens and explains it all to us, of course
Last edited:
This makes me question the very idea of understanding something. Think of Newton's laws. They held true for a long time as far as people understood, though fell down very quickly after other theories came through. So they weren't correct, but did we understand mavity for example? Do we even understand anything now? All laws are based on our observations of what's around us, and so can't truly be pure understanding, though your definition of understanding something is where the difference is.
In fact, i'm not sure I even understand what i'm talking about
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
This makes me question the very idea of understanding something. Think of Newton's laws. They held true for a long time as far as people understood, though fell down very quickly after other theories came through. So they weren't correct, but did we understand mavity for example? Do we even understand anything now? All laws are based on our observations of what's around us, and so can't truly be pure understanding, though your definition of understanding something is where the difference is.
In fact, i'm not sure I even understand what i'm talking about
The goal of complete ontological understanding is outside the domain of science and is straying into philosophical/theological territory really. Scientific "knowledge" is ultimately only as reliable the observations on which it's based.
My position is that reality is, and that we obtain models. Our models do not define any single objective reality, but merely provide us with an interpretation. Contrary to the intuitive assumption that no model is correct, it is my assertion that all useful models are correct and valid interpretations of our environment, within the bounds of their approximations.
I consider any model that produces the correct results to hold a physically significant and real meaning, and that contradictory models can, do, and should coexist, and through these we can hope to develop our models to give new ways of viewing our place in the universe, and unveil new aspects of the reality in which we exist.
So... to summarise...!
I contend that all models express manifestations of a physical reality, and that no complete objective reality can encompass all of what we may know or observe. This, however, does not preclude our true and real understanding of any event or phenomenon within any suitable framework, and the physical truth of all such descriptions are all equally affirmative.
You should note that this is not a very popular view - especially amongst quantum physicists!
Edit:
P.S. These replies are getting too long to duplicate on twitter now, so I know were are out of physics and into philosophy!
I consider any model that produces the correct results to hold a physically significant and real meaning, and that contradictory models can, do, and should coexist, and through these we can hope to develop our models to give new ways of viewing our place in the universe, and unveil new aspects of the reality in which we exist.
So... to summarise...!
I contend that all models express manifestations of a physical reality, and that no complete objective reality can encompass all of what we may know or observe. This, however, does not preclude our true and real understanding of any event or phenomenon within any suitable framework, and the physical truth of all such descriptions are all equally affirmative.
You should note that this is not a very popular view - especially amongst quantum physicists!
Edit:
P.S. These replies are getting too long to duplicate on twitter now, so I know were are out of physics and into philosophy!
Last edited:
I have to say I'd take the same view. This is why we develop models, without them we'd have nothing to go on, as we'd forever be asking questions, never reaching the real truth as it stands. In layman's terms, everything we know is a lie to ourselves, but we choose to believe it, as it holds some value still in it's own right.
I can't see the light at the end of the tunnel of understanding, though equally I find it hard to accept this fact, that there is no end. It's something, which, no doubt, has lead to faith. Perhaps we'd be crazy without it, though don't get me wrong, I'm not religious. I just accept knowing that, even if there is one, I'll never have the answer.
Very much philosophy now.
The radiation is just as harmful, ie neutron radiation, it passes straight through materials like steel and lead and is why nuclear power station reactors are shielded in metres of concrete. On the good side though fusion creates helium, which is a rare and much needed element.
Last edited:
The distinction for me lies in the realisation that it is not that the universe will not surrender it's fundamental truth to us, but that it has no fundamental truth.
If there is no underlying truth or fundamental mechanism then the question why? become less important than the question how could..?
Very interesting. The assumption of no fundamental truth seems to me like just a justification of our lack of understanding of what is real. This is where my view differs, in the fact that I believe there must be a fundamental truth, just that we'll never know, nor are we capable to know what it is, which is an equal justification for us never reaching it, and the question 'why?' as you put it, is also a ultimately pointless one.
An equally valid position no doubt, the only reason I take the opposing view is that I feel it emerges from my view of complementary and contradictory truth in modeling, though I suppose a relaxation of the explicit reality of such models allows for a comprehend-able underlying objective reality.
Does an assertion of true physical reality in any useful model not define an understanding of what can be considered real in an 'unreal' universe?
Last edited:
Hence why it's worth composing them, and why Newton in my example was right, even though he wasn't!
Indeed, regardless of the presence or absence of any underlying objective viewpoint, such progress can only be considered as the acquisition of truth and insight for the benefit of human understanding, though such progress should never eclipse the importance and relevance of the ideas that came before.
Thanks for the pleasant evenings physics chat
Tomorrow we do alien life and the drake 'equation', step right up