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

[zoobyshoe]

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").

It was called The Tao of Physics by Fritjov Capra.

From the Wikipedia article, Quantum Mysticism:

Beginning in the 1970s, New Age authors and practitioners began to impute metaphysical ideas into the physics, which eventually lead to associated practices and beliefs, many of which can only be subjectively experienced and are unfalsifiable. As a result of this, many of the metaphysical claims and related practices of quantum mysticism have been criticized as being either misinterpretations of quantum mechanics or as pseudoscience...

...Beginning in the 1970s, quantum mysticism began to take its own path with Fritjof Capra's book, The Tao of Physics, which explored the parallels between quantum physics and principles in Eastern mystical teachings. Following in the 1980s was the book, Quantum Healing, by Deepak Chopra, which explained his theory of mind and body healing using quantum concepts. In 1990, Robert Anton Wilson wrote a book called Quantum Psychology which explains Timothy Leary’s Eight Circuit Model of Consciousness in terms of quantum mysticism.[15] Then, in 1993, Ageless Body, Timeless Mind, by Deepak Chopra, was published and went on to become a New York Times Bestseller. The book discussed specific claims of healing, reversing aging, and immortality by adopting a quantum worldview and prescribed specific practices. It sold over two million copies worldwide.
[edit] Controversy

In 1998 Deepak Chopra was awarded the parody Ig Nobel Prize, in the physics category, for "his unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life, liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness", referring to his writing on quantum mysticism at the time.[16] The 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know!? made controversial use of some aspects of quantum mechanics—including the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the observer effect—as well as biology and medicine.[17] The film was largely dismissed by critics as pseudoscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

 

[rewebster]

After reading zooby's post, I remember reading some quantum physicist's article somewhere that it was possible, although a very,very small probability, that someone could, when leaning against a wall, fall through the wall. Or that a large drop of water could rise out of a pool of water.

I don't know if this has be recorded to have happened someplace yet, but it sure has jumped into the world of science fiction stories.

And there's always that group of people, including some scientists trying to invent the technologies of Star Trek.


edit/added:

and as far as the title of your thread:

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

I wouldn't doubt that could have been the prevailing thought about a lot of things just before Newton published his different works.

I think all will answered, sooner or later--even Hawking make a guess/prediction that it would happen soon (within twenty years I believe he said, a few years back)

 

[BobG]

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

I wouldn't doubt that could have been the prevailing thought about a lot of things just before Newton published his different works.

I think all will answered, sooner or later--even Hawking make a guess/prediction that it would happen soon (within twenty years I believe he said, a few years back)

He was wrong. They were all answered last week. http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/worlds_physicists_complete

 

[Nebula815]

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.

I think they are very interesting, but unanswerable right now, and not important to the strictly practical. For example you don't need to know much more than the existence of protons, electrons, and neutrons for chemistry, but we still have scientists who delve deeply into the nature of matter.

I was actually unaware that the "deeper" questions are philosophical questions though. Even if a question is currently outside the scope of science's capabilities, cannot it still be a scientific question?

For example, what is the true nature of light? That question I would think would be a scientific question, just one that is beyond science's ability to answer right now.

Or the electromagnetic force. We know it exists and how it behaves, but we don't know, per se, what exactly it is. I wouldn't say that's a philosophical question, just one that is beyond the scope of science to answer right now.

 

[zomgwtf]

I think they are very interesting, but unanswerable right now, and not important to the strictly practical. For example you don't need to know much more than the existence of protons, electrons, and neutrons for chemistry, but we still have scientists who delve deeply into the nature of matter.

I was actually unaware that the "deeper" questions are philosophical questions though. Even if a question is currently outside the scope of science's capabilities, cannot it still be a scientific question?

For example, what is the true nature of light? That question I would think would be a scientific question, just one that is beyond science's ability to answer right now.

Or the electromagnetic force. We know it exists and how it behaves, but we don't know, per se, what exactly it is. I wouldn't say that's a philosophical question, just one that is beyond the scope of science to answer right now.

I typed up a quite lengthy response to russ's post about the same thing. I dived more into the philosophy of science in the very beginning. Russ is sort of coming across as the type of person who kicks philosophy to th curb and raises science up on his shoulders proudly. It's interesting however to study where science came from and what molded this science to what it currently is... anyhow the website went down while i was posting and I couldn't go back and save what I had typed up.

Back to the problem at hand.

The question: what is the true nature of light is in my opinion more of a philosophical question. It of course depends on what you mean by the words 'true' and 'nature' the way I read it it is more like a philosophy question.

I do not see however how russ can dismiss a question simply because it's traveled beyond the scope of science. Say a couple thousand years ago I asked "what is water made of"? Would you say that it is not scientific? It's philosophical merely on the grounds that you can't answer it and can't think of a way to go about answering it? No.

A philosophical question about science would be: Is the scientific method still useful as it is? or can it be adjusted...? Is it 'ok' for me to ask that question and seek out a scientific answer? Is it ok to clone that sheep or create those heart cells? These are philosophical question about science.

The questions: What exactly is the electromagnetic force? or What is the electromagnetic force made of? are scientific.

 

[russ_watters]

Again, guys it is not a matter of if science can answer a question RIGHT NOW (implying maybe it can later), but whether the scientific method applies to the question at all.

Also, I rather suspect my own contempt for what I see as pseudophilosophical nonsense pales in comparison to the open hostility we see toward science for not dealing with such questions. When someone asks a question they consider important and gets a shrug or a yawn in response, it tends to piss them off. Often though it is just a dissatisfaction with the point of science. Saying we know how the magnetic force behaves but not what it IS is a perfect example: how it behaves IS what it is and is all science cares about.

 

[EnumaElish]

First of all, I think the thread title is circular, because it relies on our current understanding of the limits of our mental powers, which itself is a scientific (and physical) question.

Putting that aside, isn't it our current understanding that our powers of observation and measurement are limited (by the Planck length, by our event horizon, by the big bang), implying that questions that fall beyond these limits cannot be empirically answered?

 

[cronxeh]

Again, guys it is not a matter of if science can answer a question RIGHT NOW (implying maybe it can later), but whether the scientific method applies to the question at all.

Also, I rather suspect my own contempt for what I see as pseudophilosophical nonsense pales in comparison to the open hostility we see toward science for not dealing with such questions. When someone asks a question they consider important and gets a shrug or a yawn in response, it tends to piss them off. Often though it is just a dissatisfaction with the point of science. Saying we know how the magnetic force behaves but not what it IS is a perfect example: how it behaves IS what it is and is all science cares about.

First of all, I think the thread title is circular, because it relies on our current understanding of the limits of our mental powers, which itself is a scientific (and physical) question.

Putting that aside, isn't it our current understanding that our powers of observation and measurement are limited (by the Planck length, by our event horizon, by the big bang), implying that questions that fall beyond these limits cannot be empirically answered?

You implying that Planck anything, the Big Bang, etc can even be scientifically proven? Herein lies the destinction between philosophy and science. Those things are a philosophy of science, whereas structure of DNA is science.

 

[Nebula815]

Saying we know how the magnetic force behaves but not what it IS is a perfect example: how it behaves IS what it is and is all science cares about.

Not necessarily. The electromagnetic force we may understand its behavior, but that does not mean that how it behaves is what it literally is. We know how gravity behaves, but that doesn't mean how it behaves is what it literally is.

It is kind of like saying, "What is heat?" Back in the 19th century, it was thought heat was a moist-type of thing, now they know it is just a measure of the kinetic energy of the particles. But science wondered what precisely it was at first, until they realized it was just faster-moving particles.

Physics inquires into the nature of the universe. Some people seem to want to just shrug off questions that physics can't answer as not being science, but I don't know if that's the case. I think it is just the limits of the science and of the human brain right now.

If we humans "evolve" over the next 500,000 years into super-intelligent beings, and can look back at the work on physics done by the more primitive form of human, they might easily be able to grasp exactly what say the electromagnetic force is, and it would be very much a scientific question to them.

But they would probably reason, "Homo-sapiens in the 20th and 21st century trying to figure this stuff out is like chimpanzees trying to understand calculus, their brains just were not developed enough."

 

[JDStupi]

Several things I have to say again. First, the "heat" analogy to the electromagnetic force is an improper analogy in my mind because we thought heat was something that flowed and it turned out it was kinetic energy, true, and so the scientific verdict on heat was that it is a measure of a systems kinetic energy, which is an abstract concept. The electromagnetic force is scientifically known, and asking what it truly "is" is like asking what kinetic energy manifesting itself as particle motion actually "is" and these are valid phiosophical questions I suppose, but getting to what it actually "is" gets to the "thing-in-itself" which we can never know because we are only experiencing things as they appear to us through our sensory perception. The qualitative "what it truly is" I believe will be had more by a philosophical framework that works effectively within an accordance of scientific facts, and definatley think about the limits of language. One more thing you keep making evolutionary references as if evolutions purpose was toward something more intelligent or greater, that isn't what evolution is saying, this isn't a teleological evolutionary universe progressing towards a super-intelligent end, it is simply the genetic mutations that happen to be most adaptible to a given set of circumstances (environment), this makes the fact that intelligent life did evolve incredible, but don't be so sure we are progressing towards more intelligence, especially considering now we seem to manipulate our environments to suite us which may interfere with evollutionary processes. I know you may be thinking that the physics based people on this board are too pragmatically minded and thus not grasping the scope of your question, but the reason why russ keeps saying that it isn't a scientific question is because what would be the criterion or experiment used to determine what an electromagnetic force "actually is". Finding out what the force "actually is" is asking for an abstraction of an abstraction. These are mathematical concepts, formulated mathematically, understood mathematically and no language structure will accuratley support something so far removed from experience. Here is a quick example of a language limit in Physics, tied with an "Actually is" question: An atom, you have probably heard about Democritus postulating these tiny indivisible building blocks of matter, well due to everyday experience this somewhat paints the picture of a small billiard ball, rock like thing that is tiny and froms together to make everything, and some would say Democritus was right. Now, the modern picture of atoms is so incredibally different and is so differently defined that, linguistically, is the "atom" os Democritus the same "atom" of the modern era? Surely, he was onto something, that is something small that builds to bigger things, but was he correct? An atom consists of "fields" that create a strong "force" holding the nucleus together (What "really is" the chromodynamic force) And those interact with "electrons" or small quanta/ ripples in an electromagnetic field (What "actually is" the electromagnetic field) So now these two composite "actually is" questions lead to what "Actually is" an atom? And if we follow the atomic picture which leads to molecules and macroscopic things, what "actually is" anything? You see how this is philosophy and not science? I'm not knocking these questions, I believe philsophy of science questions are valuable and many other physicists have thought so throughout history (Physics used to be "Natural Philosophy"), but you must make the distinction.

 

[Nebula815]

WOW whopper of a post! Alright, well then if those questions are not science, I would say that since scientists are usually people seeking to understand the nature of the universe, wouldn't philosophy be just as important as science regarding this stuff?

Also, wouldn't things like the theories about parallel universes and multiple dimensions also be philosophy? Because there is no way to empirically experiment to test for these things.

Going strictly by physics as a science seems to be a bit limiting in understanding the nature of things.

Regarding what would be the criterion or experiment for figuring out what the electromagnetic force actually is, well I don't know, but how do we know for sure that equipment just does not yet exist to be able to experiment in this sense? Or that our minds are just not developed enough.

To say it (electromagnetic force) is just a mathematical abstraction just seems too limiting to me. There has to be something there. Positively-charged objects do not just magically pull towards negatively-charged objects (whatever a "charge" even actually is). And similarly-charged objects/particles cannot just magically repel one another. It may be understood strictly via mathematics, and is beyond the scope of our senses and capabilities to be understood any other way, but that doesn't mean it is solely an abstraction.

Ultimately to us humans, these questions do not matter in terms of engineering and practical everyday life, but in terms of pure truth-seeking, saying they do not matter to me would be like being back in ancient Greece and pondering, "What is everything ultimately made of?" and someone saying, "WHO CARES, none of that means a bit of difference to our lifestyle."

 

[zoobyshoe]

"What is everything ultimately made of?"

Picture that you are a novice in zen buddhist monastery. You line up with your fellow novices and wait while one by one you go into sit in front of the roshi (the zen master). Once you get in there, he fixes you with a hard, penetrating stare, and these words come out of his mouth:

"what is the sound of one hand clapping"

He waits for a reaction. If you have none, or it's the wrong one, he dismisses you.

but in terms of pure truth-seeking, saying they do not matter to me would be like being back in ancient Greece and pondering, "What is everything ultimately made of?" and someone saying, "WHO CARES, none of that means a bit of difference to our lifestyle."

What you and your Tao of Physics author don't seem to realize is that the roshi's words do, in fact, amount to a sort of "WHO CARES?" damnation of your "pure truth seeking". The famous zen koan is a completely different animal than wave/particle duality or superposition of states.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Several things I have to say again...

...questions are valuable and many other physicists have thought so throughout history (Physics used to be "Natural Philosophy"), but you must make the distinction.

Really nice post!

 

[ZapperZ]

WOW whopper of a post! Alright, well then if those questions are not science, I would say that since scientists are usually people seeking to understand the nature of the universe, wouldn't philosophy be just as important as science regarding this stuff?

As Richard Feynman was famous in saying "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds".

Zz.

 

[zomgwtf]

As Richard Feynman was famous in saying "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds".

Zz.

Really? I guess science and how it works etc. just popped out of the ground one day along with those cabbage patch kids. Learn the philosophy before you knock it.

 

[rewebster]

Really? I guess science and how it works etc. just popped out of the ground one day along with those cabbage patch kids. Learn the philosophy before you knock it.

I thought Feynman was being a little sarcastic or ironic when he said that; in that the statement itself was on the 'philosophy of science', and that 'philosophy of science' could be that far beyond the reach of scientists as birds trying to understand ornithology; but, the key word is 'useful'.

WOW whopper of a post! Alright, well then if those questions are not science, I would say that since scientists are usually people seeking to understand the nature of the universe, wouldn't philosophy be just as important as science regarding this stuff?

Also, wouldn't things like the theories about parallel universes and multiple dimensions also be philosophy? Because there is no way to empirically experiment to test for these things.

Going strictly by physics as a science seems to be a bit limiting in understanding the nature of things.

Regarding what would be the criterion or experiment for figuring out what the electromagnetic force actually is, well I don't know, but how do we know for sure that equipment just does not yet exist to be able to experiment in this sense? Or that our minds are just not developed enough.

To say it (electromagnetic force) is just a mathematical abstraction just seems too limiting to me. There has to be something there. Positively-charged objects do not just magically pull towards negatively-charged objects (whatever a "charge" even actually is). And similarly-charged objects/particles cannot just magically repel one another. It may be understood strictly via mathematics, and is beyond the scope of our senses and capabilities to be understood any other way, but that doesn't mean it is solely an abstraction.

Ultimately to us humans, these questions do not matter in terms of engineering and practical everyday life, but in terms of pure truth-seeking, saying they do not matter to me would be like being back in ancient Greece and pondering, "What is everything ultimately made of?" and someone saying, "WHO CARES, none of that means a bit of difference to our lifestyle."

yes, but how many of the 'things' that you're talking about are 'known' and how many are just 'accepted'? Earth was the accepted center of the universe at one time.

What I'm saying is that scientists often present what they 'know' as the 'truth' when is really just the 'accepted knowledge of the day'.

 

[zomgwtf]

I thought Feynman was being a little sarcastic or ironic when he said that; it that the statement itself was on the 'philosophy of science', and that 'philosophy of science' could be that far beyond the reach of scientists as birds trying to understand ornithology; but, the key word is 'useful'.

Which is why my statement was directed at Zapper and his use of the quote, and not directed at Feynman.

 

[rewebster]

'Some scientists' , when they see a question with a "why does...?" or "why is...?" seem to go somewhere in their heads, and say "why is a question for philosophers"; and its bothersome to me.

Is it coming from a fear of being called or thought of as a 'philosopher' by their peers if they do answer, or has the question(s) got to a point where they know that there is no really good answer, and they pull this old saying out of the bag so they don't have to say that?

 

[EnumaElish]

You implying that Planck anything, the Big Bang, etc can even be scientifically proven?

No, of course not, they are defined as our (current) limits of observation and measurement. They can be "hypothesized" as unobservable parameters of a mathematical model. My point is that (the current values of) these limits envelop all (currently) possible observation and measurement. In this sense, they are "proven" by our inability to see beyond them.

 

[JDStupi]

Good, good, your starting to get it more now. Yes, it does seem limiting to regard Physics as the be-all-end-all of universal knowledge, and thus why I have an interest in philosophy/philosophy of Science. Now, I don't claim to know all of this, or the answers, I'm just trying to clarify some thought so you can think about these things in other ways that may or may not turn out to be more fruitful. Regarding the charges repel and what not, I agree, I think there has to be some reason why they do that, and their are several ways to look at that, one being that Physically there is something out there causing these charges to attract/repel one another and we are defining it tautologically with the electromagnetic force, and there is something that it "really is" causing this to happen, and that comes more naturally I believe. The other way to thing about it (Among many more) is by examining perception and noticing how many concepts and ideas are simply a facet of sensations passing through our human minds and being categorized and defined relative to other sensations, and thus you get to one of the kind of conflicts of modern science, the reductionism vs holism and how to interpret these things idea. Meaning, is this just the way the universe as a whole functions and the charges are two sides of the same coin (one hand clapping?) and our human minds are categorizing them as different things when as a process that is simply how the universe functions. At which point you could say that this holistic argument could have been used all along and are reductionism/isolation of "individual" objects has worked very well, and that is true, though as science goes on we can't define things without reference to their interactions, system and environ.

Finally, I do not want to project the "Who cares" attitude because I do care about these issues, and I think they are interesting/important and most wouldn't consider me particularly pragmatically minded, maybe what I'm trying to say is that when you understand it more it is like asking the question of "What does God look like?" In that it is a real question, but (assuming you believe in any type of God) once you gain a better understanding regarding the nature of God,spirituality and religous experience you see that asking "What God looks like" is kind of the wrong question to ask.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Really? I guess science and how it works etc. just popped out of the ground one day along with those cabbage patch kids. Learn the philosophy before you knock it.

Back when science and philosophy were the same thing practiced by the same people it was determined that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.

 

[rewebster]

He was wrong. They were all answered last week. http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/worlds_physicists_complete

good link----

I like the way that some scientists say--"if we (YOU) fund this (give me money to fund MY idea), it WILL answer questions that we (I) have been wondering about for years, and help solve the (insert a 'need'/problem) crisis."

 

[zomgwtf]

Back when science and philosophy were the same thing practiced by the same people it was determined that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.

Great post.

 

[rewebster]

Back when science and philosophy were the same thing practiced by the same people it was determined that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.

I bet 95% of the people would still agree

 

[Nebula815]

Well I certainly do not take a "who cares" attitude either to these questions. I still am not sure if I'd consider these questions philosophical questions per se though. Philosophy, to me, is stuff like what is good and evil? Do good and evil really exist or are they just constructs invented by humans? Saying, "What is the electromagnetic force?" well modern physics may be unable to answer that for all intents and purposes right now, except mathematically, but I do not see it as philosophy. The electromagnetic force is something real and tangible, just not in the normal physical sense in how we humans understand things. Same with light. But it's there.

 

[Blenton]

I bet 95% of the people would still agree

Well heavier objects would have a greater gravitational force, thus a greater acceleration. So then shouldn't heavier objects fall faster?

 

[cronxeh]

Well heavier objects would have a greater gravitational force, thus a greater acceleration. So then shouldn't heavier objects fall faster?

Heavier force, yes. Acceleration, no.

Think of it this way. At the center of the Earth there is this strongman. He has a rope tied to a big object, and a small object, which are on the surface of Earth. He is pulling with the same rate on each object, but obviously the heavier object requires more effort, and the smaller object requires less effort.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well I certainly do not take a "who cares" attitude either to these questions. I still am not sure if I'd consider these questions philosophical questions per se though. Philosophy, to me, is stuff like what is good and evil? Do good and evil really exist or are they just constructs invented by humans? Saying, "What is the electromagnetic force?" well modern physics may be unable to answer that for all intents and purposes right now, except mathematically, but I do not see it as philosophy. The electromagnetic force is something real and tangible, just not in the normal physical sense in how we humans understand things. Same with light. But it's there.

There is a difference though.

If you have studied QED, and have dealt with the issue of field theory, etc., and then you ask "Gee, what really is an electromagnetic force beyond these description?", then I would be VERY interested in hearing what you have to say. Because if someone who has done all he/she can to understand it still have some leftover issues in trying to figure out what and why, then there's something to that.

But if all you had was an intro physics course, and then not only that, you THEN draw up the conclusion based on that level of understanding that the nature of electromagnetic force is just impossible to answer and beyond the capability of our minds, then I would dismiss that question immediately.

In the former, I don't have tell the questioner that he/she is missing a large portion of our current knowledge. In the latter, I have to not only counter the conclusion, but I may even have to spend a lot of time and effort teaching the basics first, something which that questioner should have put effort in before drawing up such conclusion. The propensity to simply draw up some conclusion without first figuring out if one has ample knowledge and information to even make an accurate conclusion is appalling.

Zz.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Nebula, this is just four pages of beating around the bush, avoiding the answer to your questions: "I don't know".

 

[ZapperZ]

Nebula, this is just four pages of beating around the bush, avoiding the answer to your questions: "I don't know".

Actually, we DO know.

For example, the question on light being "wave" or "particle" has been addressed in our FAQ. Matter and "energy" are the same ONLY if one cares about "energy accounting", and nothing else. That's like saying an apple and an orange is the same IF you only care about "fruits". And we do know about "electromagnetic force" because QED is one of the most successful theory with the highest accuracy when compared to experiment. QED has more certainty about EM fields that you know about yourself! And yes, there ARE more than 3 dimensions. There are at least 4 that we know of (3 space, and 1 time). And related to this, if time is a "concept", then so is space. If time is a "thing" then so is space.

Zz.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Actually, we DO know.

For example, the question on light being "wave" or "particle" has been addressed in our FAQ. Matter and "energy" are the same ONLY if one cares about "energy accounting", and nothing else. That's like saying an apple and an orange is the same IF you only care about "fruits". And we do know about "electromagnetic force" because QED is one of the most successful theory with the highest accuracy when compared to experiment. QED has more certainty about EM fields that you know about yourself! And yes, there ARE more than 3 dimensions. There are at least 4 that we know of (3 space, and 1 time). And related to this, if time is a "concept", then so is space. If time is a "thing" then so is space.

Zz.

So you do know, but on the first page you were saying things like this...

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.

Were you just giving him a hard time at first? Instead of stating that those questions had answers, he was being told that his questions weren't scientific. Whatever that means.

 

[rewebster]

I was thinking the more accurate way to say it is, 'Actually, we DO know a lot about them'---but everything isn't known about them--and some things are more known 'about' than others.

as in Z's:

If you have studied QED, and have dealt with the issue of field theory, etc., and then you ask "Gee, what really is an electromagnetic force beyond these description?", then I would be VERY interested in hearing what you have to say.

Until the next step of 'knowing' comes out, people/scientists won't know how much we didn't know.

 

[zomgwtf]

There is a difference though.

If you have studied QED, and have dealt with the issue of field theory, etc., and then you ask "Gee, what really is an electromagnetic force beyond these description?", then I would be VERY interested in hearing what you have to say. Because if someone who has done all he/she can to understand it still have some leftover issues in trying to figure out what and why, then there's something to that.

But if all you had was an intro physics course, and then not only that, you THEN draw up the conclusion based on that level of understanding that the nature of electromagnetic force is just impossible to answer and beyond the capability of our minds, then I would dismiss that question immediately.

In the former, I don't have tell the questioner that he/she is missing a large portion of our current knowledge. In the latter, I have to not only counter the conclusion, but I may even have to spend a lot of time and effort teaching the basics first, something which that questioner should have put effort in before drawing up such conclusion. The propensity to simply draw up some conclusion without first figuring out if one has ample knowledge and information to even make an accurate conclusion is appalling.

Zz.

So you go from the questions are unscientific to "I don't want to answer your question because it's clear you have minimal understanding?"

Here I thought that this website was designed to help those people who have minimal understanding in various subjects to gain a better understanding. Yet, here we have a mentor of the forums, a scientist himself, saying that he won't answer the question merely because it's based off a 'intro physics course'... For instance I would say I had very minimal knowledge in cosmology but when I posted my 'minimal understanding questions' they were met with answers to set my thoughts straight. No one came at me with 'LOL you do'nt even know what your talking about so I'm not going to help you understand'

Very interesting...

 

[ZapperZ]

So you go from the questions are unscientific to "I don't want to answer your question because it's clear you have minimal understanding?"

And again, you MISSED THE POINT, especially when I've already mentioned this stand clearly in this thread earlier on.

If the question was about wanting to understand something, fine. But it isn't. It is about wanting an answer based on an already-made conclusion about the nature of something.

If you had ALREADY DECIDED about the nature of wave-particle, and then want me to answer to your question on why it is impossible to understand such a thing, then it is futile for me to answer and correct such ignorance when it is based on limited knowledge!

Sigh... this is getting nowhere. So go ahead and draw up your own conclusion about me or this forum. After all, this is what this thread is good at, which is making up conclusions based on faulty premise.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

So you do know, but on the first page you were saying things like this...

Were you just giving him a hard time at first? Instead of stating that those questions had answers, he was being told that his questions weren't scientific. Whatever that means.

I do know of the NATURE of the questions if I were to GUESS at what is being asked based on what has transpired. If someone were to walk to me and ask me "Do you know think we know what electromagnetic force is?", then I would certainly respond and try to explain. In fact, people HAVE asked me that since I run an outreach program often and also have welcomed the general public to our facility many times a year. I love nothing more than to answer such questions, because many members of the public do not get to interact with physicists very often, and when they do, it is understandable they have TONS of questions to ask.

But then, that isn't the question being asked, is it? I mean, look again at the original question related to the electromagnetic force and within the context and premise it was being asked. "What is an electromagnetic force?" is being asked within the premise that we really cannot understand (impossible?) it "... with our current brains"? Under THAT premise, do YOU think it is "scientific"? All I did was answer the question while completely ignoring the original premise of the OP.

Zz.