Occam's razor and theoretical physics

[keno.mentor]

Hello Forum,

I have a general interest in theoretical physics and my knowledge and understanding extends no further than what is presented in popular layman's texts. I have two questions which may be more philosophical - if this is the incorrect forum for these questions, please direct me elsewhere.

1) Physics is increasingly becoming counter-intuitive. Ideas like those arising from quantum mechanics are difficult to accept or understand because they seem to contradict our everyday experience of the universe. I note that these ideas become widely accepted because of mathematical and theoretical foundations and 'confirmation' in experiments. With centuries of history showing theories that eventually reveal themselves to be incomplete and experiments that are later discounted, why are these counter-intuitive ideas accepted over the simpler explanation that again, the theories are wrong and the experiments deceiving?

2) Why are different properties and forces spoken about freely without explaning what those forces are? For example, the 'charge' of an electron is 'negative' and that of the proton is 'positive'. What is this 'charge' and why does negative neceassrily attract positive and like charges repel? What causes them to? Similarly for the strong and weak nuclear forces. Why does it seem that these ideas are simply made up to fill holes of understanding?

With thanks for your consideration and wishing all a prosperous new year,
Keno

 

[Rap]

Hello Forum,

I have a general interest in theoretical physics and my knowledge and understanding extends no further than what is presented in popular layman's texts. I have two questions which may be more philosophical - if this is the incorrect forum for these questions, please direct me elsewhere.

1) Physics is increasingly becoming counter-intuitive. Ideas like those arising from quantum mechanics are difficult to accept or understand because they seem to contradict our everyday experience of the universe. I note that these ideas become widely accepted because of mathematical and theoretical foundations and 'confirmation' in experiments. With centuries of history showing theories that eventually reveal themselves to be incomplete and experiments that are later discounted, why are these counter-intuitive ideas accepted over the simpler explanation that again, the theories are wrong and the experiments deceiving?

2) Why are different properties and forces spoken about freely without explaning what those forces are? For example, the 'charge' of an electron is 'negative' and that of the proton is 'positive'. What is this 'charge' and why does negative neceassrily attract positive and like charges repel? What causes them to? Similarly for the strong and weak nuclear forces. Why does it seem that these ideas are simply made up to fill holes of understanding?

With thanks for your consideration and wishing all a prosperous new year,
Keno

To a fish, the idea that land animals cannot swim through their environment is counter-intuitive - until the fish realizes that they live in a different environment. Quantum mechanics applies in the realm of the very small - a different environment which seems counter-intuitive to us large humans. Good physical theories are revealed to be incomplete not because they are wrong, but because they have not considered other environments. Newtonian physics is "intuitive" physics, it makes much intuitive sense. Quantum mechanics expands the realm of physics to the very small as well as the large. Newtonian mechanics is not now wrong, it is right, but only in the large realm. Quantum mechanics is right in both realms, and it gives the same results as Newtonian physics in the large realm.

What causes like charges to repel? I don't think anyone knows. But physics does not so much explain why, but what. Physicists make experiments, and write down what happened using the language of mathematics. Other physicists make other experiments, and write down their results. Another physicist comes along and realizes that the two experiments can be explained by a single principle, and again, expresses that principle in the language of mathematics. Our understanding has gone from experiments which are understandable to a deeper "understanding" which is not as intuitively obvious, but is "simpler". Yes, these ideas are simply made up to fill holes of understanding. But every time you "unify" a bunch of experiments with a deeper principle, you "understand" them, if you assume the deeper principle is correct. But you cannot "understand" the deeper principle. You can do more experiments and hope that an even deeper principle will reveal itself. And it always does, eventually. Like Albert Einstein said, "God is subtle but not malicious". By that he meant that he had faith that the deeper principle which eludes us now will eventually become clear to us by more experimentation and searching.

 

[keno.mentor]

Thank you fgor your response.

To a fish, the idea that land animals cannot swim through their environment is counter-intuitive - until the fish realizes that they live in a different environment.

To continue your fish analogy: Imagine the fish is in a tank. He looks toward the edge of his known universe to find an exact replica of himself looking directly at him. Moreover, this replica seems to mimick every action he does, but in the oppositie direction. How peculiar! The fish concludes that although it is counter-intuitive, the only explanation is that there is 2 hims existing simultaneously and that the alternate him is mimicking him. He carries out numerous experiments moving left and right, flicking his left fin then his right. He tells his fellow tank dwellers about this and sure enough, the results are replicated exactly by other fishes. Why would the fish accept this strange explanation over the simpler assumption that his 'results' are merely an illusion created by some more intuitive explanation, yet to be discovered?
I think this question is more than just academic. Consider that the fishes now dedicate the rest of their lives to fleshing out the details of this counter-intuitive theory rather than searching for the more intuitive one. Consequently, ichthyological quantum dynamics becomes an increasingly complex field and simple light reflection is never discovered.

What causes like charges to repel? I don't think anyone knows. But physics does not so much explain why, but what.

The question of the nature of these forces is not a question of why, but how - well within the realm of scientific inquiry.
My question is really looking at the nature of progression of scientific thought. Each new assumption builds on another, as new effects are incorparated into theory. As this happens, fundamental questions such as "What is charge?" seem to get left by the wayside. This seems to me to be like building a card house which becomes ever more complex but also ever more precarious.

Another analogy is in the realm of organisational theory. Processes build up over time as the organisation expands. The complexity of business processes increases and efficiency decreases because long invalided assumptions are still used because they are the (shaky) foundation on which newer processes are build. Eventually the organisation is a convoluted mess which requires a complete redesign of operations.

 

[Rap]

Thank you fgor your response.
Why would the fish accept this strange explanation over the simpler assumption that his 'results' are merely an illusion created by some more intuitive explanation, yet to be discovered?
I think this question is more than just academic. Consider that the fishes now dedicate the rest of their lives to fleshing out the details of this counter-intuitive theory rather than searching for the more intuitive one. Consequently, ichthyological quantum dynamics becomes an increasingly complex field and simple light reflection is never discovered.

But this is not the case in actual quantum physics. Einstein and many other heavy-duty physicists never fully accepted many of the counter-intuitive aspects of quantum physics and spent much of their time trying to develop a more intuitive version of quantum mechanics. They could not do it. Many heavy-duty physicists are today pondering the question. More experiments, more theories, its still not a settled question. But many scientists and engineers want to build things, get things done. So they use the latest state of knowledge and do the best that can be done as of today. But to suggest that physicists accept quantum mechanics on blind faith and are off on a bunny-chase is not correct.

The question of the nature of these forces is not a question of why, but how - well within the realm of scientific inquiry.
My question is really looking at the nature of progression of scientific thought. Each new assumption builds on another, as new effects are incorparated into theory. As this happens, fundamental questions such as "What is charge?" seem to get left by the wayside. This seems to me to be like building a card house which becomes ever more complex but also ever more precarious.

Another analogy is in the realm of organisational theory. Processes build up over time as the organisation expands. The complexity of business processes increases and efficiency decreases because long invalided assumptions are still used because they are the (shaky) foundation on which newer processes are build. Eventually the organisation is a convoluted mess which requires a complete redesign of operations.

Exactly. There have always been plenty of theoretical physicists looking for a better design to simplify the "mess". Albert Einstein was one of the best at it. His theories of special and general relativity were one of the greatest "redesign of operations" ever accomplished. Quantum mechanics (Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Schroedinger, etc.) was an even greater redesign that eliminated a lot of the "mess" that was atomic physics in the early 20th century. Relativity and quantum mechanics are not the convoluted mess you speak of, they are the "complete redesign of operations" that you are talking about. It is the nature of theoretical physics to continually question basic assumptions, and to discard them the minute a more solid foundation can be built. I understand relativity better than I do quantum mechanics, and trust me, although the mathematics can get complicated, the fundamental idea is brilliantly simple and beautiful. It is the process of taking that brilliant, simple idea and applying it to complicated problems that makes things look messy.

 

[keno.mentor]

...the fundamental idea is brilliantly simple and beautiful. It is the process of taking that brilliant, simple idea and applying it to complicated problems that makes things look messy.

Thank you, I hadn't considered that.

Can you recommend a good source for a beginner with only physics 101 to begin to understand relativity?

 

[finiter]

Another analogy is in the realm of organisational theory. Processes build up over time as the organisation expands. The complexity of business processes increases and efficiency decreases because long invalided assumptions are still used because they are the (shaky) foundation on which newer processes are build. Eventually the organisation is a convoluted mess which requires a complete redesign of operations.

Old organizations collapse and new ones take their place. The change is in quantum jumps and not continuous. However, over a long period, the change may appear to be continuous. The same is the case with science.
The questions you have put forth are very relevant. I think we have to go back to the pre Einstein- Heisenberg era or even to the pre Newton era, and start everything afresh to see whether we have gone wrong any where. However, for the present generation of physicists, who have gone a long way in a particular direction, the returning is not easy. They will hold on until the sand beneath their feet is completely washed away. Perhaps, the next generation may come up with a simpler explanation.

 

[Evo]

Thread closed.

In order for a discussion to be qualified for Philosophy it must adhere to these rules.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350