All we can say is “that seems weird” but that’s not a scientific argument against it.
You say it diverges from reality but… how do you know that? No experiment has ever demonstrated this.
On the contrary, this breaks semi-classical gravity’s usage of quantum mechanics. The predictions the approximation makes are not compatible with our observations of how quantum mechanics works, and scientists are working on an experiment that can disprove the hypothesis. ( https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.180201 )
Science is not falsifiability. Science is about continually updating our models to resolve contradictions between the theory and experimental practice. If there is no contradiction between the theory and experimental practice then there is no justification to update the model.
I’m afraid you’ve got that precisely backwards. Falsifiability is the core of science, as it is the method by which factually-deficient hypotheses are discarded. If there is no contradiction between the theory and experimental practice then either all false theories have been discarded or we have overlooked an experiment that could prove otherwise.
I have seen a mentality growing more popular these days which is that “fundamental physics hasn’t made progress in nearly a century.”
That’s distinctly false. The Higgs Boson was only proposed in 1964 and wasn’t measured 'til just 13 years ago.
But my response to this is why should it make progress?
Because we still have falsifiable hypotheses to test.
Why have not encountered a contradiction between experimental practice and theory, so all this “research” into things like String Theory is just guesswork, there is no reason to expect it to actually go anywhere.
We have, actually. The list of unsolved problems in physics on Wikipedia is like 15 pages long and we’re developing new experiments to address those questions constantly.
There is no reason to assume the universe acts the way we’d like it to. Maybe the laws of physics really are just convoluted and break down at black holes.
Likewise, there’s no reason to assume that the universe is not acting the way we’d like it to except where contradicted by observable evidence. If the laws of physics can “break down” then they aren’t “laws”, merely approximations that are only accurate under a limited range of conditions. The fact that the universe continues to exist despite the flaws in our theories proves that there must be a set of rules which are applicable in all cases.
And if the rules can change, then our theories will have to be updated to describe those changes and the conditions where they occur.
On the contrary, this breaks semi-classical gravity’s usage of quantum mechanics. The predictions the approximation makes are not compatible with our observations of how quantum mechanics works, and scientists are working on an experiment that can disprove the hypothesis. ( https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.180201 )
The paper is interesting and in the right direction but is just a proposal. It needs to actually be performed, because the results can finally point in the right direction rather than just guessing at what the right direction is.
I’m afraid you’ve got that precisely backwards. Falsifiability is the core of science
No, it’s a justification for pseudoscience by allowing anyone to invent anything out of whole cloth based on absolutely nothing at all and call it “science.”
as it is the method by which factually-deficient hypotheses are discarded
Except it’s precisely used to justify them.
If there is no contradiction between the theory and experimental practice then either all false theories have been discarded or we have overlooked an experiment that could prove otherwise.
Or we just haven’t conducted the experiment yet that would contradict with current theories (still talking about GR/QFT here specifically).
That’s distinctly false. The Higgs Boson was only proposed in 1964 and wasn’t measured 'til just 13 years ago.
I am obviously not defending that position and you know for a fact that is a position that has gained a lot of steam recently, you’re just trying to annoyingly turn it around on me to make it seem like I am defending a position I am not by stating something rather obvious.
Because we still have falsifiable hypotheses to test.
And this is exactly why you’re a promoter of pseudoscience: if a theory is “falsifiable” it’s “science” and “needs to be tested,” even if it’s literally based on nothing and there is no good reason anyone should take it seriously. If I claim there is a magical teapot orbiting Jupiter that is the cause of some of its currently not well-understood weather patterns and if you just built a 20 billion dollar telescope and pointed it at specific coordinates you’d discover the proof, technically you can falsify this claim so by your logic it’s “science” and therefore we should go out of our way to investigate it.
Whatever bullshit nonsense or mysticism someone makes up, as long as there is technically some way to conduct an experiment to falsify it, you will say that’s “science.” Popper has been complete poison to the academic discourse.
We have, actually. The list of unsolved problems in physics on Wikipedia is like 15 pages long and we’re developing new experiments to address those questions constantly.
Why are you intentionally being intellectually dishonest? We have been talking about a very specific theory and a very specific field of research this whole time, and you are trying to deflect this to science generally. I am sorry I even engaged with you at all, you are not in any way intellectually honest in the slightest and intentionally trying to misrepresent everything I say to “own” me and constantly are trying to pretend my position is something that it is not.
By criticizing a small handful of pseudoproblems in science you are now trying to dishonestly pretend I am claiming there are no genuinely unsolved problems, because you don’t want to actually address my point and are just a hack and I am blocking you after this post for such a ridiculously dishonest way to try and smear me rather than just address my point.
Likewise, there’s no reason to assume that the universe is not acting the way we’d like it to except where contradicted by observable evidence.
We should just assume the universe is behaving exactly the way we observe it to behave based on the evidence.
What we “like” is irrelevant. We should just observe the evidence and accept that is how the universe works until additional evidence shows otherwise.
If the laws of physics can “break down” then they aren’t “laws”, merely approximations that are only accurate under a limited range of conditions.
Most laws work like that. Plenty of laws of physics are only applicable to certain conditions.
The fact that the universe continues to exist despite the flaws in our theories proves that there must be a set of rules which are applicable in all cases.
You want them to apply to cases that currently have not been demonstrated by physically even possible to probe, so you have not even demonstrated it is an actual “case” at all. I am not denying it isn’t physically possible to probe either before you dishonestly try to turn my statement around to intentionally misrepresent me as you love to do. I am saying quite the opposite: that we should try to probe the areas that seem to not make much in our current theories. We should be trying to probe quantum effects and gravitational effects at the same time to see how they behave, because that’s how we could actually make progress if semi-classical gravity is indeed wrong.
And if the rules can change, then our theories will have to be updated to describe those changes and the conditions where they occur.
Obviously.
That’s distinctly false. The Higgs Boson was only proposed in 1964 and wasn’t measured 'til just 13 years ago.
On the contrary, this breaks semi-classical gravity’s usage of quantum mechanics. The predictions the approximation makes are not compatible with our observations of how quantum mechanics works, and scientists are working on an experiment that can disprove the hypothesis. ( https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.180201 )
I’m afraid you’ve got that precisely backwards. Falsifiability is the core of science, as it is the method by which factually-deficient hypotheses are discarded. If there is no contradiction between the theory and experimental practice then either all false theories have been discarded or we have overlooked an experiment that could prove otherwise.
That’s distinctly false. The Higgs Boson was only proposed in 1964 and wasn’t measured 'til just 13 years ago.
Because we still have falsifiable hypotheses to test.
We have, actually. The list of unsolved problems in physics on Wikipedia is like 15 pages long and we’re developing new experiments to address those questions constantly.
Likewise, there’s no reason to assume that the universe is not acting the way we’d like it to except where contradicted by observable evidence. If the laws of physics can “break down” then they aren’t “laws”, merely approximations that are only accurate under a limited range of conditions. The fact that the universe continues to exist despite the flaws in our theories proves that there must be a set of rules which are applicable in all cases.
And if the rules can change, then our theories will have to be updated to describe those changes and the conditions where they occur.
The paper is interesting and in the right direction but is just a proposal. It needs to actually be performed, because the results can finally point in the right direction rather than just guessing at what the right direction is.
No, it’s a justification for pseudoscience by allowing anyone to invent anything out of whole cloth based on absolutely nothing at all and call it “science.”
Except it’s precisely used to justify them.
Or we just haven’t conducted the experiment yet that would contradict with current theories (still talking about GR/QFT here specifically).
I am obviously not defending that position and you know for a fact that is a position that has gained a lot of steam recently, you’re just trying to annoyingly turn it around on me to make it seem like I am defending a position I am not by stating something rather obvious.
And this is exactly why you’re a promoter of pseudoscience: if a theory is “falsifiable” it’s “science” and “needs to be tested,” even if it’s literally based on nothing and there is no good reason anyone should take it seriously. If I claim there is a magical teapot orbiting Jupiter that is the cause of some of its currently not well-understood weather patterns and if you just built a 20 billion dollar telescope and pointed it at specific coordinates you’d discover the proof, technically you can falsify this claim so by your logic it’s “science” and therefore we should go out of our way to investigate it.
Whatever bullshit nonsense or mysticism someone makes up, as long as there is technically some way to conduct an experiment to falsify it, you will say that’s “science.” Popper has been complete poison to the academic discourse.
Why are you intentionally being intellectually dishonest? We have been talking about a very specific theory and a very specific field of research this whole time, and you are trying to deflect this to science generally. I am sorry I even engaged with you at all, you are not in any way intellectually honest in the slightest and intentionally trying to misrepresent everything I say to “own” me and constantly are trying to pretend my position is something that it is not.
By criticizing a small handful of pseudoproblems in science you are now trying to dishonestly pretend I am claiming there are no genuinely unsolved problems, because you don’t want to actually address my point and are just a hack and I am blocking you after this post for such a ridiculously dishonest way to try and smear me rather than just address my point.
We should just assume the universe is behaving exactly the way we observe it to behave based on the evidence.
What we “like” is irrelevant. We should just observe the evidence and accept that is how the universe works until additional evidence shows otherwise.
Most laws work like that. Plenty of laws of physics are only applicable to certain conditions.
You want them to apply to cases that currently have not been demonstrated by physically even possible to probe, so you have not even demonstrated it is an actual “case” at all. I am not denying it isn’t physically possible to probe either before you dishonestly try to turn my statement around to intentionally misrepresent me as you love to do. I am saying quite the opposite: that we should try to probe the areas that seem to not make much in our current theories. We should be trying to probe quantum effects and gravitational effects at the same time to see how they behave, because that’s how we could actually make progress if semi-classical gravity is indeed wrong.
Obviously.