Are Some Physics Questions Just Impossible to Answer With Our Current Brains?

[Nebula815]

I was discussing this once with a friend, he said he thought the idea was a cop-out, and I was wondering what the physics people here think. It just seems to me that no matter how sophisticated our technology and theories get, there are just some things we will never understand regarding this universe, at least with ordinary logic. Here are some examples:

1) Are matter and energy really the same? Is there really a tiniest particle? ("God" particle?)

2) Is time a concept created by humans or an actual thing?

3) How is light both a wave and a particle? (or is it likely something much stranger, just for practical purposes we call it both)

4) How are photons created when the electrons change energy levels? I mean where do they come from?

5) WHAT is the "electromagnetic force?" Gravity they believe is a bend in the curvature of space-time, but WHAT is it that makes protons push away from each other or electrons push away from one another, or protons and electrons attract each other? (and if anyone says it's "just a force" my head will explode)

6) What exactly is "space-time?" It is hard to imagine space-time bending in more than a 2D example. For example, I can grasp the basic concept of the planet sitting on the "sheet" of space-time and "sinking" in some, and thus approaching objects get "pulled" in via the bend, except this is just the 2D example, it (the bending) actually happens from every angle.

7) Are there any more than three dimensions? From what I understand, as it is, this idea of more than three dimensions is only theory, and all empirical evidence thus far shows only three dimensions.

An interesting book I was reading suggested that modern physics has in certain ways become like the ancient religions of the East, in that due to the scientists' inability to understand certain aspects of nature with logic, they create paradoxes (like the wave-particle duality of light) to explain it. The book said this almost makes physics resemble the ancient religions with their crazy-sounding paradoxes as well, which may sound hokey to many, but in hindsight the ancients may have been wiser than realized.

I was wondering what people think of the role of metaphysics? From what I understand, metaphysics was more studied back in the 19th century, but nowadays, no serious physicist, even if they consider the subject, will say so publicly for fear of damaging their career.

But because of the limitations physicists run into in trying to understand the world through logic, wouldn't metaphysical principles apply? Metaphysics wouldn't be promoting magic or anything, just the idea that there are aspects of the world that cannot be understood by the rational, logical human mind, and that one must go to a "higher plane" or whatnot to be able to comprehend the makings of the universe at that level.

From what I understand, this was the idea of many of the paradoxes of the ancient Eastern religions, that since so much of the universe and nature is not understandable with logic, the only thing to do is understand it via paradoxes and then the idea was to meditate on the paradoxes and try to reach that "higher plane" of mind and thus understanding ("Enlightenment").

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, but I have a new one on order that should be able to tackle those problems. I'll let you know how it goes once I get it installed.

Frankly, though, I'm not sure any of those questions you asked are really open questions in science (except maybe 7, which is a wrong premise, though). Many aren't even scientific questions! For example...

#1: Sorta - it is more complicated than that. 1a: Probably - that one is still open.
#2: Time is a dimension.
#3: the question is answered and the answer is neither - it is something else.
#5&6 are not scientific questions.

This book that you read - it sounds like the premise of the book is a misunderstanding of what science is and what it's purpose/goal is.

 

[Nebula815]

Yes, but I have a new one on order that should be able to tackle those problems. I'll let you know how it goes once I get it installed.

I do wonder if in the future we will develop technology that allows us to actually increase our brainpower...

#2: Time is a dimension.

There was a book by a physicist named Julian Barbour called The End of Time that claims it is just a concept humans created and doesn't really exist, that was why I asked on that.

#5&6 are not scientific questions.

How come? Doesn't science wonder what the electromagnetic force and space-time actually are? (maybe I am misunderstanding the exact purpose of science)

This book that you read - it sounds like the premise of the book is a misunderstanding of what science is and what it's purpose/goal is.

It was called The Tao of Physics by Fritjov Capra. He is a theoretical physicist. Another book talking about the limitations in modern physics on understanding nature is called The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Yes, but I have a new one on order that should be able to tackle those problems. I'll let you know how it goes once I get it installed.

Frankly, though, I'm not sure any of those questions you asked are really open questions in science (except maybe 7, which is a wrong premise, though). Many aren't even scientific questions! For example...

#1: Sorta - it is more complicated than that. 1a: Probably - that one is still open.
#2: Time is a dimension.
#3: the question is answered and the answer is neither - it is something else.
#5&6 are not scientific questions.

This book that you read - it sounds like the premise of the book is a misunderstanding of what science is and what it's purpose/goal is.

How can those questions not be scientific? It seems like you're saying that after a certain point, you shouldn't ask anymore questions because they're not scientific anymore.

Like if I asked what a ladder is made of: If it's wood, I ask what is wood made of, then I ask what are molecules made of, then I ask what are atoms made of, then I keep asking questions until suddenly my question is no longer scientific?

 

[ZapperZ]

How can those questions not be scientific? It seems like you're saying that after a certain point, you shouldn't ask anymore questions because they're not scientific anymore.

Like if I asked what a ladder is made of: If it's wood, I ask what is wood made of, then I ask what are molecules made of, then I ask what are atoms made of, then I keep asking questions until suddenly my question is no longer scientific?

The questions being asked are based on rather an incomplete understanding of our current understanding. They are also rather vague in terms of what the question is really asking. For example, the question on whether matter and energy are the "same", what exactly does that entails? If one is asking "Does a quantity of matter "m" the same as the quantity of energy "mc^2"?", then YES. In other words, you are asking for the quantity of a property and comparing it. If you think I'm being picky and exact, that's what a science question has to be!

The question on wave-particle duality has been discussed ad nauseum, so much so we even have an entry in the FAQ thread in the General Physics forum. Did the OP ask this question before, or after reading that?

The question on photon creation by "change of level" begs the follow-up question on whether the OP thinks photons can only be created that way. If he/she is aware of other methods (such as change acceleration/deceleration), then does that mean that he/she has no problem in understanding how photons are created in that way, since that question isn't asked? And to being up the question of what an "electromagnetic force" is without even a hint of acknowledging the existence of QED is very puzzling.

I can go on, but my conclusion is that these "questions" that the OP thinks are impossible to answer is based on his/her lack of knowledge of what we already know. Many of these things have been addressed at the level that the OP wants to know.

Zz.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I can go on, but my conclusion is that these "questions" that the OP thinks are impossible to answer is based on his/her lack of knowledge of what we already know. Many of these things have been addressed at the level that the OP wants to know.

I was wondering how a question about science can be unscientific. If he's not asking the question correctly, it seems a little arrogant to nitpick about it, because you know what he's asking. It's like a child asking "Can I have some ice cream" and a mother responding with "I don't know, can you?", forcing the child to ask the "correct" way with "May I have some ice cream?"

 

[ZapperZ]

I was wondering how a question about science can be unscientific. If he's not asking the question correctly, it seems a little arrogant to nitpick about it, because you know what he's asking. It's like a child asking "Can I have some ice cream" and a mother responding with "I don't know, can you?", forcing the child to ask the "correct" way with "May I have some ice cream?"

That question is NOT the same thing, given the CONTEXT.

When you are proposing a claim that these are impossible to answer, AND giving a treatise on why, then you must have quite a bit of knowledge of not only what you're asking, but the nature of the question!

If the OP were to ask about "wave particle duality" in the QM forum, do you think he/she would have gotten the SAME response? Go and look at that forum and you'll see that there ARE question of that nature. In none of them will you see a response telling the OP that this isn't a valid science question. So do a bit of self-evaluation and figure out what's the difference here!

Zz.

 

[leroyjenkens]

If the OP were to ask about "wave particle duality" in the QM forum, do you think he/she would have gotten the SAME response? Go and look at that forum and you'll see that there ARE question of that nature. In none of them will you see a response telling the OP that this isn't a valid science question.

So people in the QM forum would say something different? How is that relevant to what russ said? I was responding to what russ said. What he said remains the same, regardless of what other people around the world would say.

If I say the sky is green, regardless of how many other people around the world would say something different, you would still be correct in telling me that I'm wrong. Or is my statement that the sky is green not subject to criticism because people in the Earth forum would say that it's blue?

 

[Blenton]

I think it is quite possible that the mathematics required to explain advanced phenomina will be much too complicated for present humans to understand. Every layer of understanding is progressively harder and harder than the last, whilst a thorough understanding of the last is required.

Obviously there its takes an exponential amount of time for one to learn up to the pinnacle of understanding. So my hope is that we are able to advance enough to at least be able to develop a way to become 'smarter' or a method to greatly simplify learning.

 

[ZapperZ]

So people in the QM forum would say something different? How is that relevant to what russ said? I was responding to what russ said. What he said remains the same, regardless of what other people around the world would say.

If I say the sky is green, regardless of how many other people around the world would say something different, you would still be correct in telling me that I'm wrong. Or is my statement that the sky is green not subject to criticism because people in the Earth forum would say that it's blue?

Your "green" could have been calibrated differently. If you tell me the frequency range of that light, then we have something unambiguous to refer to.

You are still missing the point. The OP already has made up his/her mind that these are "impossible questions", regardless of the fact that many of these are clearly based on a lack of understanding of our current knowledge. If the question was "I don't understand wave-particle duality. Do we know more than just what I think I know?", then that's a different matter. We deal with this question very often, and that's why we have a FAQ for it. But that's not what we have here, or do you dispute that as well?

Zz.

 

[leroyjenkens]

You are still missing the point. The OP already has made up his/her mind that these are "impossible questions", regardless of the fact that many of these are clearly based on a lack of understanding of our current knowledge. If the question was "I don't understand wave-particle duality. Do we know more than just what I think I know?", then that's a different matter. We deal with this question very often, and that's why we have a FAQ for it. But that's not what we have here, or do you dispute that as well?

You're missing my point. I know what the OP has done. Whether or not the questions he asked have already been answered is irrelevant. I was responding to what russ said. He attempted to answer some of the questions, then said others were unscientific. What's unscientific about a science question?

 

[rewebster]

I really like the question(s) and discussions of the topic of this and these type of threads.

The orig. post has a duality in its text. Do you answer the topic and/or the theme of the topic/text?

There's answers all over the place for all of the questions of in the first post. The ideas behind those answers are still different, and accepted---and probably could be plotted as a bell shaped curve.


Are some of the answers good enough to use?---sure

Are they right? maybe, maybe not

Are there better and more complete answers? unquestionable (that's why there's 'research')

I think the idea of 'metaphysics' plays a very, VERY important role in physics, (to me, that's the topic of the thread)---


and if you don't believe it---think of that cat in the box, or what would it be like riding on along side a beam of light.

 

[ZapperZ]

You're missing my point. I know what the OP has done. Whether or not the questions he asked have already been answered is irrelevant. I was responding to what russ said. He attempted to answer some of the questions, then said others were unscientific. What's unscientific about a science question?

The fact that many of them are based on false or incomplete premise does not make them an unscientific question? I thought I've given ample example!

Zz.

 

[zomgwtf]

The fact that many of them are based on false or incomplete premise does not make them an unscientific question? I thought I've given ample example!

Zz.

How is question number 5 unscientific? I believe it's currently outside our current understanding of science but that doesn't mean 'it's unscientific' to ask such things.

I guess what russ was saying in his post was that for now the questions (which are not based on false premises) are more philosophical in nature, however to attempt to bring these questions into the realm of science and ask them from a scientific perspective is, in my opinion, not wrong or unscientific.

EDIT: when I say which are not based on false premises I mean that the questions which he asked that are not based on false premises, not saying all the questions are not based on false premises

 

[rewebster]

The fact that many of them are based on false or incomplete premise does not make them an unscientific question? I thought I've given ample example!

Zz.

"The fact" is maybe not "a fact"

 

[russ_watters]

I'm on a BlackBerry, but some quick food for thought: does a question about Peyton Manning's salary help at all in predicting if he's going to win the game on Sunday? Just Because that's a question about football, that doesn't make it a football question. So too a philosophical question about science (whether based on a misunderstanding or not).

 

[BobG]

I'm on a BlackBerry, but some quick food for thought: does a question about Peyton Manning's salary help at all in predicting if he's going to win the game on Sunday? Just Because that's a question about football, that doesn't make it a football question. So too a philosophical question about science (whether based on a misunderstanding or not).

Except a question about Manning's salary is a football question even if it doesn't help answer the question about who is going to win this Sunday. It does help answer who will win the AFC Championship game a year from now since Manning's salary does affect how much money the Colts have available to bid for free agents and still remain under the salary cap.

It has to be possible, but I think constructing a philosophical question about science that isn't a science question would be more difficult than the opposite.

 

[rewebster]

and, a question about his salary also reflects on his abilities, as his abilities were to that point, which is pertinent to the possibilities/odds of a win/loss (on Sunday).

 

[ZapperZ]

So you're telling me that you can't tell the difference between a question ABOUT science, versus a science question?

Zz.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The fact that many of them are based on false or incomplete premise does not make them an unscientific question? I thought I've given ample example!

Regardless of how he asks the question, you know what he's asking. These are basic questions that get asked often. No matter how people word the questions, you know what information they're trying to get out of them.

What would you say if your child asks you why the sky is blue? Would you correct him/her by saying the question is inherently assuming that the sky is always blue? Would you ask them to define "sky", since there's different layers of atmosphere? You could break it down and explain how their question is unscientific and undeserving of an answer.
You wouldn't do that because you know what they're asking, regardless of HOW they ask it. You know what information they're looking for. If you didn't know, you could just say "I don't know".

So you're telling me that you can't tell the difference between a question ABOUT science, versus a science question?

What would be an example of a science question that isn't a question about science? And vice versa?

 

[rewebster]

So you're telling me that you can't tell the difference between a question ABOUT science, versus a science question?

Zz.

Exactly WHO is the judge? --(me?, not always)


What's the present view on string theory?



Is that a question ABOUT science, or a science question?
(is it coming from a scientist, a lay scientist, a non-scientist, a grant writer, your uncle?)

Is a science 'question' , a single 'question'?

and doesn't a question ABOUT science generally lead to another question? (e.g.)

 

[ZapperZ]

Exactly WHO is the judge? --(me?, not always)


What's the present view on string theory?



Is that a question ABOUT science, or a science question?
(is it coming from a scientist, a lay scientist, a non-scientist, a grant writer, your uncle?)

Is a science 'question' , a single 'question'?

and doesn't a question ABOUT science generally lead to another question? (e.g.)

OK, let me ask you ANOTHER QUESTION. Are you telling me that you ALWAYS cannot tell the difference between a science question, and a question ABOUT science?

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

OK, let me ask you ANOTHER QUESTION. Are you telling me that you ALWAYS cannot tell the difference between a science question, and a question ABOUT science?

Zz.

(geez, talk about beating a dead horse)

--(me?, not always)

then, the rest is pertinent also...




OK, let me ask you ANOTHER QUESTION

What's the present view on string theory?

Is this ALWAYS a question ABOUT science, or ALWAYS a science question?

are you hijacking this thread?

 

[cronxeh]

Well I for one believe that a particle has a definite position and a definite momentum. I believe there are only 3 spatial dimensions and 1 linear dimension of time. That is my beef with physics.

And for what its worth, using particle-wave like photons in Bell's tests, assuming that all of them were detected, and so on, just adds to uncertainty that we have created.

 

[zomgwtf]

Zapper, if you could just show how, beyond any doubt, question 5 is not SCIENTIFIC in nature then I'll concede.

 

[zomgwtf]

OK, let me ask you ANOTHER QUESTION. Are you telling me that you ALWAYS cannot tell the difference between a science question, and a question ABOUT science?

Zz.

I think you mean a scientific question vs. a question about the science? That's not at all what's occurred in the OP so it's not relevant at all. Asking what the 'operating thing' is behind forces such as gravity is in my mind scientific, even though we can't answer it really. It has nothing to do with questioning the science behind forces but is a question that came out of the science done.

 

[fluidistic]

5) WHAT is the "electromagnetic force?" Gravity they believe is a bend in the curvature of space-time, but WHAT is it that makes protons push away from each other or electrons push away from one another, or protons and electrons attract each other? (and if anyone says it's "just a force" my head will explode)

Answer from wikipedia:

In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles.

 

[Nebula815]

For the record, I do not have formal physics training yet. I am working my way through algebra, then I will move onto calculus, then a physics text, and then continue with more advanced maths, and then I can read more advanced physics books.

But until then, I am mostly a laymen with regard to formal physics.

The questions being asked are based on rather an incomplete understanding of our current understanding. They are also rather vague in terms of what the question is really asking. For example, the question on whether matter and energy are the "same", what exactly does that entails? If one is asking "Does a quantity of matter "m" the same as the quantity of energy "mc^2"?", then YES. In other words, you are asking for the quantity of a property and comparing it. If you think I'm being picky and exact, that's what a science question has to be!

Okay, well on the question about matter and energy, I know mathematically they are the same, but I mean materially are they the same thing, or just mathematically equivalent, but otherwise different things?

Or is matter literally just energy, but in a different form? For example, I think string theory holds that there is no ultimate "God particle," but rather that matter really is just small pieces of energy, something like that.

The question on wave-particle duality has been discussed ad nauseum, so much so we even have an entry in the FAQ thread in the General Physics forum. Did the OP ask this question before, or after reading that?

Asked it before reading it, I will check out that FAQ.

The question on photon creation by "change of level" begs the follow-up question on whether the OP thinks photons can only be created that way. If he/she is aware of other methods (such as change acceleration/deceleration), then does that mean that he/she has no problem in understanding how photons are created in that way, since that question isn't asked?

I am aware there are other methods for creation of photons, I felt I didn't need to mention them because I thought the first example made the point. Regardless of whether electrons change energy levels or change in acceleration/deceleration, whatever, WHERE exactly do the photons come from?

Of course the photons also have no mass either, and behave like a wave, so they probably aren't really a particle is what I understand, that is just one concept we use to understand light a certain way.

And to being up the question of what an "electromagnetic force" is without even a hint of acknowledging the existence of QED is very puzzling.

You mean quantum electro dynamics? I do not know what that is. I just mean what specifically, is the force? What exactly causes the same particles to repel one another and the opposite particles to attract?

You are still missing the point. The OP already has made up his/her mind that these are "impossible questions", regardless of the fact that many of these are clearly based on a lack of understanding of our current knowledge.

No, I have not made up my mind that these are "impossible questions" to answer, but I am wondering if they will ever be answerable from a qualitative standpoint.

For example, the theory of gravity. It sounds almost "obvious" now, the idea of gravity just being a "bend" in the curvature of "space-time," but Einstein didn't arrive at that conclusion through thinking, "I know, there must be this combo called 'space-time' and gravity isn't actually a force in the conventional sense, it is just a bend or curvature in this space-time 'fabric'," Einstein reached his conclusion through much complicated mathematics and calculations.

On things like wave-particle duality, I would imagine that perhaps through very sophisticated mathematics, one could reach an "understanding" of the subject, but I doubt it will ever be comprehensible in a qualitative sense (even the qualitative understanding of gravity one cannot understand in a 3D sense, only in a 2D sense).

Or the electromagnetic force? For example, fluidistic cites Wikipedia's definition: "In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles." Okay, but WHAT is the force exactly? It is too simplistic to say it is "just a force."

I am sure there are very sophisticated mathematics that can give an answer to this question perhaps, in a quantitative sense, but in a qualitative respect, very difficult to grasp.

Now if people say, "Well we do not have enough understanding of the subject to answer the question the way you want it answered," well okay, but is this lack of understanding due to a true lack of knowledge on our part or are our brains too limited to ever really understand this concept right now?

For example, are we, in trying to understand such questions, like a group of chimpanzees trying to understand calculus? Yes, chimps "lack the requisite knowledge" to understand calculus but their brains are incapable of learning even the pre-requisites, let alone calculus. But calculus makes sense to us. Maybe our brains are lacking in capability for the more advanced topics of the nature of the universe?

Evolution-wise, we are a fairly new animal still.

If the question was "I don't understand wave-particle duality. Do we know more than just what I think I know?", then that's a different matter. We deal with this question very often, and that's why we have a FAQ for it. But that's not what we have here, or do you dispute that as well?

Will check the FAQ, but I am guessing we can't understand it right now, or we would not give it the name "wave-particle duality," as that is a paradox. The very name suggests lack of understanding of what light really is (and electricity).

 

[fourier jr]

I do wonder if in the future we will develop technology that allows us to actually increase our brainpower...

now would we ever have the brainpower to do that?

 

[JDStupi]

I'm not claiming to be the authority on this subject, I just figured I would throw in my two cents: I believe that everybody is essentially trying to say that the questions you are asking are essentially philosophical questions moreoso than Physical, in that though they surely concern the physical we do not yet know exactly the relationship between the mathematical/logical relations described by our physical equations and our manifold of experience. All that we know is built upon from our perception of the world, and physics is trying to describe the relations between aspects of our experience. Many times Physics is interpreted in a physically realistic way, though this need not be the case and many modern physicists/philosophers point this out. I am not saying how to interpret the science, because I don't know, I'm just laying it all out there for you. Question 1 is "meaningless" in that if you are asking what is "really" or "literally" there beyond the described E=mc2 nobody knows, and this isn't neccessarily a limitation of the modern brain or our methods. We only experience the totality of existence as a whole and trying to isolate energy and matter as things that "exist" like rocks or something is somewhat like asking the wrong question. It certainly seems to exist in some sort of way (besides, "exist" is hard to define) we utilize it in many aspects of life and engineering everyday and it has proven accurate. #2 Open question, nobody quite knows, but my take is that every sensation we know and experience is represented in the physical world as something vastly different from how we know it and the same is true of time, meaning the physical mechanism that causes our subjective sensation of "time" may not be able to be rightly called "time" in the conventional sense.

I think you should study some philosophy, try reading about Immanual Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", and try reading a little about linguistic philosophy, I think many of the problems with your questions lie in language, its scope of applicability and the games it can play on you, due to you thinking through language. And don't be so sure that gravity is 100% a physically realistic curve in space-time. Also, I suggest you try to re-absorb the information in Tao of Physics, I think more of what Fritjof was trying to say was more hinting towards linguistics losing meaning with "wave/particle" duality and the place of science. Try to consider that all we are describing is the relations between the sensory stimuli we experience everyday, and asking what "photons" are exactly may be pointless because a photon is an effective abstraction used to describe physical relations, and insisting on a "qualitative" description of things that cannot be described qualitatively is folly. Langauge is confined by the three-dimensional macroscopic human world we experience and thus it breaks down when speaking outside our domain. Fritjof is a fan of a systems way of thinking that doesn't exclude the inter-relationships between all things, and all he is trying to do is point out the interesting subjective awareness of connection brought about by Eastern spiritual traditions and the inter-connectivity being shown in modern science and its relationship to fully considering experience. Not much more. Not saying Eastern Religions are right etc just "food for thought" or atlleast that's how I took it.

Anyway, I hope I've been of some help or gave you things to consider, but as you can see everything I said was philosophy and none of it physics, I do not even have a clue as to the physics/mathematics behind the theories yet, I am not at that level, but I can examine experience and try to make some conclusions.

Consider this: "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language"- Ludwig Wittgenstein

and "The limits of my language means the limits of my world"- Ludwig Wittgenstein.

 

[Nebula815]

Didn't someone have a thread going some time ago about how their philosophy teacher told them there is no gravity on the Moon? And I am supposed to look to such people for understanding of the universe

Okay jokes aside, I get what you are saying to some degree, although I don't know if I'd say that something like the electromagnetic field isn't something that "exists" in the conventional sense per se. I mean there has to be something that causes protons and electrons to pull towards one another for example.

On light, in the General Physics FAQ, it says photons are not "particles" in the normal sense, they are considered energy quanta, but have no matter and that in quantum mechanics, that theory can describe both light as a wave and light as a particle easily. So I would suppose then that, whatever light actually is, "photons" are as you say, just an abstraction to describe physical relations.

On matter, well I do want to know exactly what matter is made out of, it's like we keep finding tinier and tinier particles, but no smallest particle (and even then, what does this smallest particle consist of?).

On gravity, yes I know "space-time" isn't a physical thing that is physically "bent" per se by matter, it is more complex than that.

I think you should study some philosophy, try reading about Immanual Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", and try reading a little about linguistic philosophy

Coolbeans, will check them out.

 

[russ_watters]

...my imperfect analogy aside, I think people understood my point, but rebrewster, I don't think everyone agrees with it/belives it, so I don't think ZZ is beating a dead horse. So to be more specific, a scientific question is a question that can be answered via the scientific method. A question about a science topic that can't be answered with the scientific method is not a scientific question. The question "Why is the sky blue?" can be either, depending on if you are looking for an answer involving the scattering of light or if you are looking for where the word "blue" came from.

Some of the questions in the OP struck me as being more philosophical than scientific in nature or psuedophilosophy based on a misunderstanding of the science. Ie, the wave/particle duality of light is an apparent paradox to be argued philosophically...until one learns that there are more than just two options.

Questions about deeper meaning of how gravity or electromagnetism work will eventually reach a point where they are beyond the scope of science and thus are not scientific questions.

 

[russ_watters]

There was a book by a physicist named Julian Barbour called The End of Time that claims it is just a concept humans created and doesn't really exist, that was why I asked on that.

How come? Doesn't science wonder what the electromagnetic force and space-time actually are? (maybe I am misunderstanding the exact purpose of science)

It was called The Tao of Physics by Fritjov Capra. He is a theoretical physicist. Another book talking about the limitations in modern physics on understanding nature is called The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin.

I vaguely remember hearing about these guys and that their philosophical beef with science is not a mainstream/accepted view. Without getting more specific about them, I can't really assess their views, but I can say that the specific issue of whether time exists is not an open question to the scientific mainstream. As well, most scientists are not interested in philosophical dissatisfaction with the scope of science.

For me, personally, the "deeper" questions (as people like to call them) about the nature of gravity and magnitism are not just outside the scope of science, but uninteresting and unimportant.

 

[russ_watters]

Didn't someone have a thread going some time ago about how their philosophy teacher told them there is no gravity on the Moon? And I am supposed to look to such people for understanding of the universe

Okay jokes aside...

It's really not a joke (well...that philosophy teacher was a joke). It is exactly my perception of what virtually this entire issue is about: people who don't understand the science turn to philosophy and ask unscientific questions and/or wrong questions about issues already dealt with. At the same time, when an endless stream of "why" questions comes, (as any good 8 year old will throw at their parents), eventually the answer really is "that's just the way it is". Philosophically minded people are simply unable to accept such an answer and that's fine, but the question has left the domain of science - and that isn't a flaw in the scientific method.

 

[rewebster]

No, I have not made up my mind that these are "impossible questions" to answer, but I am wondering if they will ever be answerable from a qualitative standpoint.

For example, the theory of gravity. It sounds almost "obvious" now, the idea of gravity just being a "bend" in the curvature of "space-time," but Einstein didn't arrive at that conclusion through thinking, "I know, there must be this combo called 'space-time' and gravity isn't actually a force in the conventional sense, it is just a bend or curvature in this space-time 'fabric'," Einstein reached his conclusion through much complicated mathematics and calculations.

On things like wave-particle duality, I would imagine that perhaps through very sophisticated mathematics, one could reach an "understanding" of the subject, but I doubt it will ever be comprehensible in a qualitative sense (even the qualitative understanding of gravity one cannot understand in a 3D sense, only in a 2D sense).

Or the electromagnetic force? For example, fluidistic cites Wikipedia's definition: "In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles." Okay, but WHAT is the force exactly? It is too simplistic to say it is "just a force."

I am sure there are very sophisticated mathematics that can give an answer to this question perhaps, in a quantitative sense, but in a qualitative respect, very difficult to grasp.

Now if people say, "Well we do not have enough understanding of the subject to answer the question the way you want it answered," well okay, but is this lack of understanding due to a true lack of knowledge on our part or are our brains too limited to ever really understand this concept right now?

For example, are we, in trying to understand such questions, like a group of chimpanzees trying to understand calculus? Yes, chimps "lack the requisite knowledge" to understand calculus but their brains are incapable of learning even the pre-requisites, let alone calculus. But calculus makes sense to us. Maybe our brains are lacking in capability for the more advanced topics of the nature of the universe?

Evolution-wise, we are a fairly new animal still.



Will check the FAQ, but I am guessing we can't understand it right now, or we would not give it the name "wave-particle duality," as that is a paradox. The very name suggests lack of understanding of what light really is (and electricity).

I look at the 'sciences' and the divisions/interests sort of like Darwin's evolutionary tree overlaid with fractal. Some sciences are closer branches than others, and some have more limbs; and, the divisions/interests may have to be blown up/enlarged quite a bit to see them better. Some branches/interests are newly evolved from theories, like the area of condensates, or even fairly newly discovered, like pulsars,- and coelacanths, as their branch at times was thought dead end.

The nice thing about it is that each of us has their own interests, and those that have more closely aligned interests are closer on their own branch.

I think, whether you worded your questions correctly or not, doesn't matter, as least to me. And, I think a lot of people get interested and develop more defined interests starting out with questions like you presented. There's all kinds of paths to take and questions like your's are a good start.