Which physics theory is hardest to believe?
Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:03 am
I can say there are many candidates. It seems at many forums, people have their favorites.
PhilX
PhilX
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
The scientific sense is what I mean. There are so many theories I wouldn't know where to begin as to what's acceptable and what isn't. I know scientists accept the BBT which I find a struggle to accept myself, e.g.surreptitious57 wrote: βFri Jul 28, 2017 8:32 am Do you mean theory in the scientific sense or the lay sense. The thing I accept as true although it is counter intuitive is the behaviour of two
non local particles. Also that from the internal reference frame of a photon time does not exist even though the speed of light is finite. With
regard to mere hypotheses the notion that time or space or both do not actually exist because they are nothing more than mental constructs
I take it you haven't read my blog http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk It explains why scientists believe the BBT. It also explains that, generally, the theories physicists use are the ones that work. There is a difference between a mathematical model and a concept of reality on which a mathematical model is based. The fact is that experiments and observations are still finding things we haven't seen before, so physicists are trying to think of causes for them, which you may or may not find believable, but in the meantime, the observations can be recorded, analysed and described mathematically.Philosophy Explorer wrote: βSat Jul 29, 2017 5:20 pmI know scientists accept the BBT which I find a struggle to accept myself, e.g.
PhilX
I don't need to read a blog to know what's in vogue todayuwot wrote: βSun Jul 30, 2017 12:29 amI take it you haven't read my blog http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk It explains why scientists believe the BBT. It also explains that, generally, the theories physicists use are the ones that work. There is a difference between a mathematical model and a concept of reality on which a mathematical model is based. The fact is that experiments and observations are still finding things we haven't seen before, so physicists are trying to think of causes for them, which you may or may not find believable, but in the meantime, the observations can be recorded, analysed and described mathematically.Philosophy Explorer wrote: βSat Jul 29, 2017 5:20 pmI know scientists accept the BBT which I find a struggle to accept myself, e.g.
PhilX
Up to you, but it's a good place to start exploring.Philosophy Explorer wrote: βSun Jul 30, 2017 3:01 amI don't need to read a blog to know what's in vogue today
may be out of vogue tomorrow.
It's based on the Standard Model of particle physics and the lambda cold dark matter cosmological model, which is also standard. It's not really a case of their being in vogue; they are the best explanations we have of current observations.Philosophy Explorer wrote: βSun Jul 30, 2017 3:01 amThe Standard Model is a stronger example of a theory that would be undergoing a serious adjustment.
PhilX
Well put.surreptitious57 wrote: βSun Jul 30, 2017 11:55 am The Standard Model can not account for dark energy or dark matter which between them make up 96 per cent of observable
physical reality. And neither does it unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. So there is still much more to be done
The Standard Model is really just a description of all the particles and forces we know exist, with the exception of gravity, having seen them in colliders, like the LHC. It's an extremely accurate model in that respect, but you are quite right, as well as gravity, it doesn't account for dark energy or dark matter. I have given a description of the mechanism I think might explain gravity. Dark energy is just the name for whatever is causing the acceleration of cosmic expansion, and I have suggested a mechanism for that too. Dark matter is postulated as the source of gravity which prevents stars being flung out of galaxies, which at the rate they are spinning, there isn't enough visible matter, other stars, to do. Personally, I think if objects are spinning, there should in effect be 'ether drag' (terrible name), so that gravity is strongest in the plane of rotation. The fact that solar systems are in a single plane, as are most galaxies, suggests this is the case. That quasars only eject material from their polar regions is further evidence.surreptitious57 wrote: βSun Jul 30, 2017 11:55 amThe Standard Model can not account for dark energy or dark matter which between them make up 96 per cent of observable
physical reality.
Well, no. No one has ever seen a graviton; if we do, general relativity is toast.surreptitious57 wrote: βSun Jul 30, 2017 11:55 amAnd neither does it unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.
Absolutely.
That's not how it works. It's the Higgs Field that gives fundamental particles mass. Essentially, if you think of a heavy thing as being difficult to move, you have to flip that on its head, and think of something that is difficult to move as heavy. A bit like moving through water is more difficult than walking through air, the Higgs Field slows fundamental particles down. In effect, if you hit the Higgs Field hard enough, you will break a piece off-a Higgs Boson-but that doesn't play any part in giving other particles mass. (Most of the mass of atoms is from the interactions in the quark-gluon field in the nucleus, though.)Necromancer wrote: βSun Jul 30, 2017 4:16 pm The Higgs Boson is not credible, I think. That one certain mass, 125 GeV, is somehow "magically" supposed to explain all other mass... Funny! Weird!
Who knows? They may yet prove useful in analysing the world, but I'd be surprised if they actually describe it.Necromancer wrote: βSun Jul 30, 2017 4:16 pmThe string theory, M-theory, or any other, also seems incoherent, but more studies remain. I'm not there yet though I'm being led by a certain classical physics Chinese scientist.
Well yeah. It what you sometimes get when physicists do philosophy, and why more hard nosed physicists tell them to shut up and calculate.henry quirk wrote: βSun Jul 30, 2017 5:34 pm Here's two pieces of bullshit...
*A cat can exist in an 'uncertain' state, not dead, not alive.
*That all possible versions of an event, or universe, are real.