Re: What are physicists trying to do?


"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:56ad1ffb-d781-4b08-94ae-fe8a47c0602c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 30, 1:39 pm, "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:b95772fc-b01e-4c9b-ba42-06df989f3166@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Dec 30, 11:52 am, "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
What are physicists trying to do?

This is a provocative question for some, especially those
who do not like or accept relativity or QM. Here is my
answer, which I believe to be close to the 'official' view.

Why do you think there's an "official" view? What
"officials" determine this? Is it written down?

Not as far as I know, that is partly why I asked the
question.

In physics, like any other profession, the people who
pursue it have individual reasons for why they pursue
it, for what they want to do, and for what aspects of
it they find satisfying.

The reasons people pursue physics may be individual
but there must be some kind of consensus as to what
physics is.

Physicists are trying to produce a quantitative model of
the world in which we live which, within its realm of
applicability, agrees with experiment. The following
properties are also desirable.

I guess that you agree with this bit.

Yes, I agreed with this bit.

1 Philosophically pleasing.

I'm not sure what that means. It doesn't sound
important. The universe is what it is, even if the
rules displease me or somebody else.

What rules?

Fundamental to the existence of the field of physics
is the concept that the universe obeys quantifiable
rules,

I think you will find that many modern physicists will
not agree with that statement. The universe _may_
obey some kind of rules but it may not. I can see
three possibilities, maybe there are more:

1 The universe obeys a simple set of rules

2 The universe obeys a set of rules that is so complex that
it could never be understood by humans.

3 The universe does not have any rules.

The point is, how could we ever distinguish between
the above?



such as "momentum is conserved in the absence
of force (F = dp/dt)" or "dx*dp >= h-bar/2" or
"p = gamma*m*v" or "V = IR". Those rules. The
mathematical description of the universe.

But is that a description of the universe's rules
or our rules?


--
Martin Hogbin



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?
    ... That is not an endorsement of Platonism which is ... > realized in the physical existence of the universe before heat death. ... It is the current position of Physics that no more ... Realism holds that these ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?
    ... That is not an endorsement of Platonism which is ... PCs are physical and have all physical parts in a physical universe. ... It is the current position of Physics that no more ... "The oldest use of the term "realism" comes from Medieval interpretations ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?
    ... That is not an endorsement of Platonism which is ... PCs are physical and have all physical parts in a physical universe. ... It is the current position of Physics that no more ... "The oldest use of the term "realism" comes from Medieval interpretations ...
    (sci.math)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.physics)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.space.policy)