Does physics make things up to make the math work?

[Write4U]

Today the questions are more along the line of “how come galaxies have flat rotation curves?”

Does "angular momentum" have anything to do with that? Rotation tends to flatten the rotating object, no?

Question: Does the universal "event horizon" get bigger over time or does it remain the same?

 

[Write4U]

It's a theory based on evidence. And it is falsifiable. All scientific theories are falsifiable and therefore never proven.

It's a theory based on evidence. And it is falsifiable. All scientific theories are falsifiable and therefore never proven.

Today we know better than to rely on personal observation. Individuals don't even experience the same reality. Einstein's theory was not based on observation but on universal mathematics.
That's the beauty of maths. They are a property of the universe.

When the maths are correct, the theory can be proven.
A cosmologist posited that: "if we ask the universe a question and we ask it nicely (with the correct maths), it always provides the right answer."

The Higgs boson cannot exist in this dimension, but we managed to materialize it for an instant before it decayed and disappeared. It's the use of applied mathematics/physics that made it possible.

 

[Magical Realist]

Einstein's theory was not based on observation but on universal mathematics.

Einstein's theories were not considered true until precise observations were made confirming their predictions. Science will always rely on observations and measurements to verify itself. That's what makes it different from just esoteric math.

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”---Einstein

Today we know better than to rely on personal observation....The Higgs boson cannot exist in this dimension, but we managed to materialize it for an instant before it decayed and disappeared. It's the use of applied mathematics/physics that made it possible.

Tell me how that happened without observation of physical reality.

 

[Write4U]

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”---Einstein

Said by a true scientist. This addressed human maths, not universal mathematical processes.

Tell me how that happened without observation of physical reality.

First the Higgs would have manifested even without human observation. It was the Cern collider that made it possible. But it was the applied mathematics that created the proper physical environment for the boson to manifest for a "quantum instant"?

Less than a sextillionth of a second

Unlike electrons, which can last for billions of years, the life of a Higgs boson is astonishingly short— less than a sextillionth of a second.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...oson-decay-quarks-lhc-standard-model-physics#

 

[Magical Realist]

Said by a true scientist. This addressed human maths, not universal mathematical processes.

There's two mathematics now? Since when?

It was the Cern collider that made it possible

Some scientists had to have observed the registering of the boson on the collider's detectors. It doesn't just all happen inside with noone looking.

 

[exchemist]

When a "prediction" comes true, is that not called "proof"?

When Einstein predicted that light bends in a gravitational field, it was later proved by observation.
Is that not the definition of proof, prediction ?

No. Far from it.

 

[Write4U]

No. Far from it.

Are you saying that Eddington did not prove Einstein right?

Arthur Eddington

In 1919, Arthur Eddington and his research team set out to look for signs that the gravity of massive objects could bend light, proving Einstein right and positively developing theoretical physics beyond the classical mechanics .

https://www.space.com/einstein-relativity-1919-solar-eclipse-100-years-ago.html.

 

[exchemist]

Are you saying that Eddington did not prove Einstein right?

Arthur Eddington

https://www.space.com/einstein-relativity-1919-solar-eclipse-100-years-ago.html.

Eddington proved Einstein's prediction, from his new theory, right.

That does not prove the theory right, just that it worked for this phenomenon. Read MR's posts on this.

 

[Pinball1970]

Einstein's theories were not considered true until precise observations were made confirming their predictions. Science will always rely on observations and measurements to verify itself. That's what makes it different from just esoteric math.

Agree.

I do not like the word "true" though. Truth for me is treading on philosophy.

You are correct on a few key points however.


Proof in science is reserved for mathematics, you can prove a mathematical theorem.


A scientific theory is never proven in the same sense because it is not just one thing, one equation.


Big bang cosmology is a good example, Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre laid the foundations but this was added to adjusted refined.


Observations, theoretical contributions, models to explain the data and that is continuing as we speak.

 

[Janus58]

It's a theory based on evidence. And it is falsifiable. All scientific theories are falsifiable and therefore never proven. Proof only exists in math.

No, it is a hypothesis, or it could be a postulate, or an observation used in the formation of a theory. A theory is a model that attempts to explain the evidence. Kepler's Laws of planetary motion were based on observation, but were not a theory, as they offered no explanation for them. Newton later supplied the model with his theory of gravity.

 

[James R]

Yazata,

JamesR's point about models is a good one and I'd guess that physics' beloved mathematical formulae start out as models.

All physical theories start off as conceptual ideas. The mathematics comes in because we want to be able to test those ideas. We want to quantify things. We want to statistically analyse our level of uncertainty, etc.

Each formula is meant to summarize some particular relationship that is observed in whole classes of empirical observations that seem to the physicists to be similar in some way.

But somewhere along that twisty path the summary formulae are hypostasized, and they start to be imagined as if they were distinct substances or realities.

That does happen in some cases. I think this sort of confusion between models and the things being modelled tends to be more common among the later generations of students of science who are taught about the models as if they are somehow an infallible reflection of reality. The originators of the ideas are usually well aware that they are proposing tentative hypotheses in an effort to describe aspects of the observed reality.

They transform from being models that summarize a set of observations, into being the underlying laws of nature to which all physical phenomena must somehow conform.

It is poor pedagogy to teach that science is prescriptive (which it isn't) rather than descriptive (which it is).

"Ye canna break the laws of physics, Jim!" is a true statement, but the problem is that we don't know the actual laws of physics. All we know, at any given time, is what our best current approximation to those laws is. The laws of physics written down by human beings are always a work in progress and they often turn out to be some kind of approximation to a more complicated and comprehensive set of laws. In rare cases, they turn out to be actual mistakes, which forces us to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch.

We saw that illustrated in the 'Something From Nothing' arguments, in which today's physicists' understanding of quantum mechanics somehow become the fundamental principles of reality itself, with deeper ontological reality even than space-time-matter physical reality and somehow able to explain the origin of the latter.

Personally, I think that pop-science presentations of quantum physics often tend to misrepresent or overextend the actual science. Quantum physics doesn't say that something can come from nothing, for example. It does, on the other hand, describe quantum fields that can randomly fluctuate and thereby create particles that usually last for very short periods of time before disappearing back into the quantum vacuum. While they exist, though, they can have measurable effects.

As far as quantum physics is concerned, space and time are backdrops against which quantum processes play out. There are attempts to combine our best understanding of space and time (the general theory of relativity) with our best understanding of quantum physics, to find a unified theory. The main problem with those attempts is that, to date, they don't seem to be testable.

The trouble might be that they don't know what's actually there. All they know are their observations. Pronouncing what's actually there requires a leap.

Rather than trying to pronounce on what is or isn't actually there, careful physicists more commonly make statements such as "The results of these experiments/observations are consistent with the predictions of Theory X and Theory Y, while they tend to refute Theory Z." They recognise that, even if these observations support Theory X, that doesn't mean that Theory X must be correct, or that Theory X must be the Final Theory of the phenomenon being studied.

Pop-science accounts of scientific work, on the other hand, tend to be more definitive. The headlines say "Scientists have discovered that ..." or "New experiments have shown that ...". Scientists themselves often tend to me more circumspect about their work. "Our results suggest that X might be case." "Our latest experiments show that it is more likely that X than Y." "Our latest results suggest that fruitful avenues for further research might include W and Z."

Of course, not all scientists. There are certainly some scientists who like to blow their own horns and who make unwarranted claims about what they have achieved. Those scientists tend to be the exception rather than the rule, and they usually come in for warranted criticism - often from their colleagues in the same field - sooner or later (often sooner).

Most scientists learn early on to be skeptical when other scientists claim to have made a "leap". Leaps are the exception rather than the rule in science. A lot of science is just gradually chipping away at a problem and making gradual incremental improvements to our collective knowledge. There are few true Eureka! moments.

Business-as-usual science doesn't make for exciting headlines, though, so there is always a tension between scientists and reporters/popularisers who want to tell an exciting story.

We see that illustrated in quantum mechanics, which possesses a great apparatus for predicting observations, albeit probabilistically, but limited ability to tell us what is actually there on the micro-scale, such that the observations come out as they do.

It's worth considering the question of whether we should care about what is "actually there", especially if what is actually there is something we can never truly access. Pragmatically, if A is what is actually there and our best theories posit some other foundational objects or entities, B, then if the predictions of theories built around the modelling of B produce all of the same real-world outcomes as theories built around the modelling of A, then there's no practical benefit to be had in knowing that A is what is "actually there" rather than B.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: some off-topic posts moved to Write4U's stream of consciousness thread.

Please post on topic.

 

[exchemist]

Yazata,

All physical theories start off as conceptual ideas. The mathematics comes in because we want to be able to test those ideas. We want to quantify things. We want to statistically analyse our level of uncertainty, etc.

That does happen in some cases. I think this sort of confusion between models and the things being modelled tends to be more common among the later generations of students of science who are taught about the models as if they are somehow an infallible reflection of reality. The originators of the ideas are usually well aware that they are proposing tentative hypotheses in an effort to describe aspects of the observed reality.

It is poor pedagogy to teach that science is prescriptive (which it isn't) rather than descriptive (which it is).

"Ye canna break the laws of physics, Jim!" is a true statement, but the problem is that we don't know the actual laws of physics. All we know, at any given time, is what our best current approximation to those laws is. The laws of physics written down by human beings are always a work in progress and they often turn out to be some kind of approximation to a more complicated and comprehensive set of laws. In rare cases, they turn out to be actual mistakes, which forces us to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch.

Personally, I think that pop-science presentations of quantum physics often tend to misrepresent or overextend the actual science. Quantum physics doesn't say that something can come from nothing, for example. It does, on the other hand, describe quantum fields that can randomly fluctuate and thereby create particles that usually last for very short periods of time before disappearing back into the quantum vacuum. While they exist, though, they can have measurable effects.

As far as quantum physics is concerned, space and time are backdrops against which quantum processes play out. There are attempts to combine our best understanding of space and time (the general theory of relativity) with our best understanding of quantum physics, to find a unified theory. The main problem with those attempts is that, to date, they don't seem to be testable.

Rather than trying to pronounce on what is or isn't actually there, careful physicists more commonly make statements such as "The results of these experiments/observations are consistent with the predictions of Theory X and Theory Y, while they tend to refute Theory Z." They recognise that, even if these observations support Theory X, that doesn't mean that Theory X must be correct, or that Theory X must be the Final Theory of the phenomenon being studied.

Pop-science accounts of scientific work, on the other hand, tend to be more definitive. The headlines say "Scientists have discovered that ..." or "New experiments have shown that ...". Scientists themselves often tend to me more circumspect about their work. "Our results suggest that X might be case." "Our latest experiments show that it is more likely that X than Y." "Our latest results suggest that fruitful avenues for further research might include W and Z."

Of course, not all scientists. There are certainly some scientists who like to blow their own horns and who make unwarranted claims about what they have achieved. Those scientists tend to be the exception rather than the rule, and they usually come in for warranted criticism - often from their colleagues in the same field - sooner or later (often sooner).

Most scientists learn early on to be skeptical when other scientists claim to have made a "leap". Leaps are the exception rather than the rule in science. A lot of science is just gradually chipping away at a problem and making gradual incremental improvements to our collective knowledge. There are few true Eureka! moments.

Business-as-usual science doesn't make for exciting headlines, though, so there is always a tension between scientists and reporters/popularisers who want to tell an exciting story.

It's worth considering the question of whether we should care about what is "actually there", especially if what is actually there is something we can never truly access. Pragmatically, if A is what is actually there and our best theories posit some other foundational objects or entities, B, then if the predictions of theories built around the modelling of B produce all of the same real-world outcomes as theories built around the modelling of A, then there's no practical benefit to be had in knowing that A is what is "actually there" rather than B.

Yes, I have always felt uneasy when people speak of the "laws of nature" or "laws of physics". It seems to me most "laws" in science are invented or discovered by human beings, to describe how nature behaves in certain circumstances. A giveaway is how often these "laws" are given the names of their human inventors: Lenz's law, Dalton's law of partial pressure, Newton's laws of motion, etc.

More often than not too, these "laws" are either approximate or only apply strictly under "ideal" (i.e. seldom fully realised) conditions. As such, they are often more interesting in the breach than the observance. In chemistry it was always the rules that are broken that intrigued me: deviations from Raoult's law, "forbidden" transitions in spectroscopy, breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, carbon exhibiting "non-classical" 3- centre bonding in the norbornyl cation (cf. my avatar), etc.

Someone (an Austrian, on a religious forum actually) seemed to me to put it well by saying it is not that we have discovered "laws of nature" but we see there is "underlying order in nature", which we try to express, more or less imperfectly, through our various "laws".

I have often thought that as a chemist I may be more aware of the limitations of a lot of our "laws" than perhaps a physicist would necessarily be - due to the messy complexity of atoms with more than 2 electrons and everything that follows from that, i.e. chemistry.

I'm sure you are right too that science is often taught at school level more dogmatically, for the sake of simplicity and to get across the idea that nature really is pretty reliably predictable if these laws are borne in mind. So these nuances may not be conveyed properly, particularly by the less imaginative teachers. As I say, I was lucky with my chemistry teacher.

(The conservation laws and laws of thermodynamics , however, really do seem to be laws of nature, I will admit.)

 

[Pinball1970]

While the vast majority of physicists find the evidence for dark matter’s existence convincing, some continue to examine alternatives, and the views in the press and the public are significantly more divided. The most common response I get when I talk about dark matter is: “isn’t this just something physicists made up to make the math work out?”

I think dark matter is a good example. Say you are a astrophysics undergraduate interested in DM and you want to find a thesis subject, where do you start? Do you go to the black board and start fiddling about with random equations?
No, you start with the knowledge you have first. This will not be random this will be the result 5-6 years study from 'O' level 14-16 yr, then A level 16-18yr for uni entrance, the 2 years undergrad covering Newtonian mechanics to Einstein GR.
Then Hubble, Lemaitre et al to Penzias / Wilson and the CMBR and we are only up to 1964!
So my point is, even by 20 as a physics student you are calling on a lot of knowledge on a subject to start on a project.
Even then the starting point would not be what comes out of your head, it will be a literature search.
So in addition to what has been taught in class from standard textbooks you would be looking up what has been published on the subject in the last couple of years.

Graduate, MSc then PhD all the same process but each time a step higher.

Substitute the phrase "making stuff up" with "Scientific creativity built from a solid foundation of ten years hard work" and I am with you,

 

[exchemist]

I think dark matter is a good example. Say you are a astrophysics undergraduate interested in DM and you want to find a thesis subject, where do you start? Do you go to the black board and start fiddling about with random equations?
No, you start with the knowledge you have first. This will not be random this will be the result 5-6 years study from 'O' level 14-16 yr, then A level 16-18yr for uni entrance, the 2 years undergrad covering Newtonian mechanics to Einstein GR.
Then Hubble, Lemaitre et al to Penzias / Wilson and the CMBR and we are only up to 1964!
So my point is, even by 20 as a physics student you are calling on a lot of knowledge on a subject to start on a project.
Even then the starting point would not be what comes out of your head, it will be a literature search.
So in addition to what has been taught in class from standard textbooks you would be looking up what has been published on the subject in the last couple of years.

Graduate, MSc then PhD all the same process but each time a step higher.

Substitute the phrase "making stuff up" with "Scientific creativity built from a solid foundation of ten years hard work" and I am with you,

Agree, but I think it is also worth stressing dark matter is in effect a prediction. Our theory of celestial mechanics tells us the observed rate of rotation of galaxies implies more matter than we can see. The theory predicts there should be extra mass there that is invisible. So either that is the explanation or the theory fails in this case.

MR might note that cosmologists are exploring both possibilities, i.e either there is a hitherto unknown form of matter that does not interact electromagnetically (i.e. we need an extension to our theory of matter) or the current theory of gravitation does not work at this scale, in which case that theory is incomplete, hence MOND etc.

So, far from being the hidebound prisoner of a dogmatic orthodoxy [drone, crank cliché, drone] , as MR likes to pretend in other contexts, science is being open-minded and flexible.

 

[Magical Realist]

Henri Poincare had some pertinent things to say about this topic. Here's a few of them:

"...contrary to the naïve dogmatists’ view, that which science captures are not the things themselves, but simply relationships between them. Beyond these relations, there is no knowable reality..." -- Henri Poincare, "Science and Hypothesis"

“Mathematicians do not deal in objects, but in relations between objects; thus, they are free to replace some objects by others so long as the relations remain unchanged. Content to them is irrelevant; they are interested in form only.”
― Henri Poincaré

“A reality completely independent of the spirit that conceives it, sees it, or feels it, is an impossibility. A world so external as that, even if it existed, would be forever inaccessible to us.”
― Henri Poincaré

“The philosophers make still another objection: "What you gain in rigour," they say, "you lose in objectivity. You can rise toward your logical ideal only by cutting the bonds which attach you to reality. Your science is infallible, but it can only remain so by imprisoning itself in an ivory tower and renouncing all relation with the external world. From this seclusion it must go out when it would attempt the slightest application.”
― Henri Poincaré, The Value of Science
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jules Henri Poincaré (UK: /ˈpwæ̃kɑːreɪ/, US: /ˌpwæ̃kɑːˈreɪ/; French: [ɑ̃ʁipwɛ̃kaʁe] ⓘ;[1][2][3] 29 April 1854 – 17 July 1912) was a French mathematician, theoretical physicist, engineer, and philosopher of science. He is often described as a polymath, and in mathematics as "The Last Universalist",[4] since he excelled in all fields of the discipline as it existed during his lifetime. Due to his scientific success, influence and his discoveries, he has been deemed "the philosopher par excellence of modern science."[5]

As a mathematician and physicist, he made many original fundamental contributions to pure and applied mathematics, mathematical physics, and celestial mechanics.[6] In his research on the three-body problem, Poincaré became the first person to discover a chaotic deterministic system which laid the foundations of modern chaos theory. He is also considered to be one of the founders of the field of topology.

Poincaré made clear the importance of paying attention to the invariance of laws of physics under different transformations, and was the first to present the Lorentz transformations in their modern symmetrical form. Poincaré discovered the remaining relativistic velocity transformations and recorded them in a letter to Hendrik Lorentz in 1905. Thus he obtained perfect invariance of all of Maxwell's equations, an important step in the formulation of the theory of special relativity. In 1905, Poincaré first proposed gravitational waves (ondes gravifiques) emanating from a body and propagating at the speed of light as being required by the Lorentz transformations.[7] In 1912, he wrote an influential paper which provided a mathematical argument for quantum mechanics."--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincaré