The Limits of Science

[fncceo]

In his book, "Three Body Problem", the author, Cixin Liu, discusses the fundamental limit of science as a matter of perspective. Theoretical physics has reached a point where our ability to observe The Universe is insufficient to prove, or disprove modern physics theories. He compares that limited perspective in the following examples:

When the members of the Frontiers of Science discussed physics, they often used the abbreviation “SF.” They didn’t mean “science fiction,” but the two words “shooter” and “farmer.” This was a reference to two hypotheses, both involving the fundamental nature of the laws of the universe.

In the shooter hypothesis, a good marksman shoots at a target, creating a hole every ten centimeters. Now suppose the surface of the target is inhabited by intelligent, two-dimensional creatures. Their scientists, after observing the universe, discover a great law: “There exists a hole in the universe every ten centimeters.” They have mistaken the result of the marksman’s momentary whim for an unalterable law of the universe.

The farmer hypothesis, on the other hand, has the flavor of a horror story: Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock.


Cixin Liu, "Three Body Problem"

 

[White 6]

In his book, "Three Body Problem", the author, Cixin Liu, discusses the fundamental limit of science as a matter of perspective. Theoretical physics has reached a point where our ability to observe The Universe is insufficient to prove, or disprove modern physics theories. He compares that limited perspective in the following examples:

When the members of the Frontiers of Science discussed physics, they often used the abbreviation “SF.” They didn’t mean “science fiction,” but the two words “shooter” and “farmer.” This was a reference to two hypotheses, both involving the fundamental nature of the laws of the universe.

In the shooter hypothesis, a good marksman shoots at a target, creating a hole every ten centimeters. Now suppose the surface of the target is inhabited by intelligent, two-dimensional creatures. Their scientists, after observing the universe, discover a great law: “There exists a hole in the universe every ten centimeters.” They have mistaken the result of the marksman’s momentary whim for an unalterable law of the universe.

The farmer hypothesis, on the other hand, has the flavor of a horror story: Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock.


Cixin Liu, "Three Body Problem"

That is funny, but somehow, I doubt that. At this point, we are still moving forward on many fronts, confirming earlier theory and disproving others, while throwing out new hypothesis to be confirmed or disproven.

 

[fncceo]

That is funny, but somehow, I doubt that. At this point, we are still moving forward on many fronts, confirming earlier theory and disproving others, while throwing out new hypothesis to be confirmed or disproven.

I'm not so sure. Right now, cosmological physics consists mostly of hypothetical energies and matters that cannot be proved or disproved, that cannot be detected or observed and serve merely as formulaic place holders.

Since Einstein's 1917 theoretical cosmology that required an undetectable cosmological constant, another 20 cosmological theories have been proposed. All of which require the existence of unprovable, theoretical matters and energies.

The state of modern theoretical physics in something like the old cartoon ...

 

[White 6]

I'm not so sure. Right now, cosmological physics consists mostly of hypothetical energies and matters that cannot be proved or disproved, that cannot be detected or observed and serve merely as formulaic place holders.

Since Einstein's 1917 theoretical cosmology that required an undetectable cosmological constant, another 20 cosmological theories have been proposed. All of which require the existence of unprovable, theoretical matters and energies.

The state of modern theoretical physics in something like the old cartoon ...

View attachment 696382

But, some of theoretical particles have been confirmed at places like CERN, though still waiting on the "dark matter".
Did you see the report, that pictures from the James Webb space telescope, seeing farther than ever before are showing, the Big Bang Theory is disproven?

 

[fncceo]

But, some of theoretical particles have been confirmed at places like CERN, though still waiting on the "dark matter".
Did you see the report, that pictures from the James Webb space telescope, seeing farther than ever before are showing, the Big Bang Theory is disproven?

Big Bang wasn't disproved by anything from the James Web satellite. The satellite was designed to observe the oldest, most distant, galaxies in our universe. In fact, there is speculation that some of the galaxies observed were a mere 200 million years older than The Big Bang. Even if a galaxy was detected that was believed to be older than the BB, it would only serve to change the approximate date of the BB, not the theory itself.

Subsequently, there has been suggestion that the JWST is in need of calibration and those observed galaxies might not be as old as previously thought.

That being said, the engire BBT rests only two observable facts ... first, the optical Doppler Shift detected by Edwin Hubble in the 1930's and The Cosmic Background Radiation, first observed in 1964. BBT is the best explanation for the way we observe our Universe electromagnetically. But, there might be a huge part of that picture based on what we cannot detect.

 

[james bond]

In his book, "Three Body Problem", the author, Cixin Liu, discusses the fundamental limit of science as a matter of perspective. Theoretical physics has reached a point where our ability to observe The Universe is insufficient to prove, or disprove modern physics theories. He compares that limited perspective in the following examples:

When the members of the Frontiers of Science discussed physics, they often used the abbreviation “SF.” They didn’t mean “science fiction,” but the two words “shooter” and “farmer.” This was a reference to two hypotheses, both involving the fundamental nature of the laws of the universe.

In the shooter hypothesis, a good marksman shoots at a target, creating a hole every ten centimeters. Now suppose the surface of the target is inhabited by intelligent, two-dimensional creatures. Their scientists, after observing the universe, discover a great law: “There exists a hole in the universe every ten centimeters.” They have mistaken the result of the marksman’s momentary whim for an unalterable law of the universe.

The farmer hypothesis, on the other hand, has the flavor of a horror story: Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock.


Cixin Liu, "Three Body Problem"

That's a great story. The author though calls it the three body problem. What's the third hypothesis or is that the cartoon?

 

[fncceo]

That's a great story. The author though calls it the three body problem. What's the third hypothesis or is that the cartoon?

A three-body-problem is an insoluble problem in physics.

Where the initial position and velocity of three independent bodies are known, it is impossible to solve for their ultimate interactions. The resulting results are too chaotic.

Although it has been solved in VERY specific and limited scenarios, there is no closed-ended general solution. No general solution that can be expressed in terms of a finite number of standard mathematical operations.

 

[DudleySmith]

Physics outran mathematics' ability to describe empirical evidence by the early 1970's.

As for the alleged disproving of the 'big bang', what they see could just as easily be the effects of the early masses center of gravity finally being drawn back to the much larger center of mass of all matter, i.e. they finally ran out of energy to keep moving away and are now being pulled back. Sooner or later all the other masses still moving out will reach that horizon as well.

We don't even know how many actual dimensions there are. Einstein spent much of his time after his most famous theories were published, based on applying 4th degree equations to empirical observations, on trying to solve 5th degree equations. String theory is now used as a panacea, despite the absurdities it presents.

 

[DudleySmith]

But, some of theoretical particles have been confirmed at places like CERN, though still waiting on the "dark matter".
Did you see the report, that pictures from the James Webb space telescope, seeing farther than ever before are showing, the Big Bang Theory is disproven?

There are also predicted particles they don't find; nobody spends much time on those so we don't hear about them much if at all.

 

[fncceo]

One of the greatest examples of predictive science is the Periodic Table of Elements.

By arranging elements according to properties and comparing atomic weights, Mendeleev was able to deduce that elements such as Gallium and Germanium, unknown in 1867, would exist and created a place for them on his table.

This was all done decades before the concept or Protons and Neutrons making up the nucleus of atoms was first expounded.

 

[Brick Gold]

Science is a method. Skepticism and logic, record keeping and data. There is nothing foolproof here, but science does more for us than anything else, thats what I think.

 

[fncceo]

Science is a method. Skepticism and logic, record keeping and data

An essential method, in a relatively stable universe. But, in a chaotic universe, it would be pointless.

 

[Brick Gold]

An essential method, in a relatively stable universe. But, in a chaotic universe, it would be pointless.

Well then anything abnormal you can imagine would be fitting and the discussion has no conclusive trajectory.

 

[fncceo]

Well then anything abnormal you can imagine would be fitting and the discussion has no conclusive trajectory.

I'm not saying this is true. I don't know. But, imagine, if there were a limit to how much of natural laws of The Universe we could perceive or understand?

 

[Brick Gold]

I'm not saying this is true. I don't know. But, imagine, if there were a limit to how much of natural laws of The Universe we could perceive or understand?

There are no laws in science. A law is an enforced behavior control set. Nothing enforces gravity and threatens to punish it if it changes behavior. It is what it is and looks like it never changes, that isnt a law.

Annoyances aside, I think that theres different physics within each dimension and these things we observe in our universe might not be true in some other part of existence that we are unable to detect or study.

Since we cant observe other dimensions where physics might be different then there isnt much we can say about it and are just as well off reading scifi novels and believing them.

 

[fncceo]

There are no laws in science. A law is an enforced behavior control set. Nothing enforces gravity and threatens to punish it if it changes behavior. It is what it is and looks like it never changes, that isnt a law.

In fact, there are many "laws" in physics. Not ephemeral criminal laws that come and go with political whims, but actual laws that say if A happens, B must happen.

There are no penalties for violating laws of gravity, motion, conservation of energy, or thermodynamics. But, we make predictions on how our Universe will behave based on the fact that according to our own perceptions, those laws never change.

When those laws are too random, or beyond our ability to perceive, we can no longer make predictions on how our Universe will behave.

 

[sparky]

A scientist turkey

~S~

 

[Brick Gold]

Cant say much about this, its hypothetical and impractical. If existence starts falling apart as you say then we probably wont be talking about science.

 

[White 6]

Big Bang wasn't disproved by anything from the James Web satellite. The satellite was designed to observe the oldest, most distant, galaxies in our universe. In fact, there is speculation that some of the galaxies observed were a mere 200 million years older than The Big Bang. Even if a galaxy was detected that was believed to be older than the BB, it would only serve to change the approximate date of the BB, not the theory itself.

Subsequently, there has been suggestion that the JWST is in need of calibration and those observed galaxies might not be as old as previously thought.

That being said, the engire BBT rests only two observable facts ... first, the optical Doppler Shift detected by Edwin Hubble in the 1930's and The Cosmic Background Radiation, first observed in 1964. BBT is the best explanation for the way we observe our Universe electromagnetically. But, there might be a huge part of that picture based on what we cannot detect.

I am no cosmologist, but here are two articles.

The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.

The Big Bang theory is still on solid ground, despite pseudoscientific attempts to twist JWST's findings

www.space.com

Do James Webb Telescope Images Disprove The Big Bang Theory? | Principia Scientific Intl.

Do James Webb Telescope Images Disprove The Big Bang Theory?

principia-scientific.com

 

[zaangalewa]

That's a great story. The author though calls it the three body problem. What's the third hypothesis or is that the cartoon?

I was once very angry about "the three body problem" (or "the many body problem") because I never heard from it in school. If I had known about it I had perhaps made something in another way in my life. The "two body problem" is easily solveable by Kepler's laws. The three body problem is only in some cases solveable. From my point of view it shows to us that "chaos" - in the mathematical sense of this word - is a kind of living order basing on natural laws for which we have not a good intuition.




A good comparison is perhaps that we are able to simulate a coffee stain with a lot of computer-power which really looks like a coffee stain - but not a very special concrete single coffee stain which we see in nature because we are not able to see the very concrete start parameters and all disturbing elements.