Influence of Technology on Theory

[Guest JerryA]

Is our perception of the world is limited by the types of tools we have available for measurement? For example, we have great tools for causing and measuring electromagnetic phenomena, and physics seems to describe an underlying world of electromagnetic phenomena. But is this worldview based on the fact that these tools are the ones available, or on the fact that the underlying nature of the universe is ONLY electromagnetic.

 

I would be interested to know if there are any credible views in the scientific community which involve non-electromagnetic interpretations of natural phenomena. I realize that this question might be "not even wrong," but I think it is reasonable to ask. I am not a proponent of pixie dust, magical thinking, or Deus ex Machina. I am, however, curious.

 

-- A man leaving a bar encounters another man circling a light pole staring intently at the side walk. The first man asks the second what he is doing. He replies that he lost his contact lens and is trying to find it. The first man asks him where he thought he might have lost it. The second man replies that it was down the alley. The first man asks why he is looking for his contact lens under the light pole. The second man answers "because the light is better"

 

Jerry (IANAP)

[Thales]

Its a very relivant point that you make. The ideas that exist in theory also have a distinct effect of biasing detection equipment. Take photons for instance. If you look for waves, you see waves however if you calibrate the equipment to see particles, you see particles. To me this is one of the most stark examples of how technology and the means by which we observe the directly unobservable influences how and what we actually observe(or infer to be more correct).

 

As technology improves the resolution at which we see the world improves and influences theory. The irony in the situation is that new technologies arise via new theories. A self supporting cycle that needs only the input of a few inspired thinkers to get us, well, here where we are today. The microscope and telescope are other examples. Its is also a steady increase(that has made marked acceleration in the last century) which usually dictates(with a few obvious exceptions) that statling new and innovative theories, that require technology much beyond us currently to prove, are few and far between.

 

That said our brain is the best technology we will ever have and shouldn't be underestimated!

[DerSpooky]

Many physicists of the recent past concerned themselves with the limitations technology may play in our understanding of nature. One example of this would be the degree of uncertainty maintained as an axiom of quantum mechanics, stating that the more we try to see what nature does, the more she will lie and say that its none of our business.

It seems that we have reached a point in that our presence has become a significant disturbance to the behavior of certain natural phenomena. Technological advances may improve our "poking sticks" a little more here and there, which could have a significant impact on current research in progress; However, the scientific method, based so much on the greeks, may have to adapt to the conundrums that present scientific investigation must face. An example would be to use technological advances to understand an area such as supersymmetry, and if nature permits, then using this knowledge to peer into an even smaller world where we could only indirectly test or infer the theory's of such a tiny and labyrinthine world.

[Thales]

No. QM is incomplete. Just because we see contradictions today, it does not mean that future technology and intuitive reasoning cannot find a way to get around these. If we had some means of optically resolving exactly what was happening in the quantum realm we may indeed find that it is simpler than we currently think. We may be taking a long and convoluted path that helps us reach the eventual simple conclusions I envisage but in the end our models will always be just that, models. Summing the universe up in one simple theory may be possible but the limits set on our intellectual capacity may provide nature with a way to outsmart us.

[[Tycho?]]

"I would be interested to know if there are any credible views in the scientific community which involve non-electromagnetic interpretations of natural phenomena"

 

There are 4 known fundamental forces. In no particular order they are: electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and gravity.

[Guest JerryA]

I knew sooner or later I would get hoisted for just specifying "electromagnetic".

 

My question and my intent are quite broad. In essence I was wondering if there are competing (reasonable) world views about the nature of what underlies macroscopic reality. Did we reach our current worldview because of the tools we selected or because the tools arise out of, and therefore reflect the totality of, reality and that's all there is.

 

The consensus so far seems to be that the technology reflects rather than defines the nature of "reality." This is not a surprising result, but I was curious if there was dissension on this point.

 

Consider this a gentle fishing expedition for alternative worldviews.

[[Tycho?]]

Well no, there isn't much dissention. For someone to dissent they would have to come up with a totally different theory for how everything works, while many of the ones we have now have been around a very long time and have been proven countless times. Tools can influence the development of theories by being increasingly accurate, and there by showing that a previous theory is accurate or inaccurate. If it is inaccurate, then it will be changed to one that does fit.

[eighth man]

Well the mind of the observer is always in the

picture, don't forget. So we observe according

to the way our mind is organized and organizes

information so what and how we observe and our

theories and interactions with reality are quite

arbitrary. In the future when we start to modify

the circuits of our mind brain the emotions circuits

the perceptions the relations between these (and

there probably trillions of ways to do this)

these problems will no longer be important.

(I imagine a solid state civilization)

[eighth man]

I want to add some more:

 

1) To your real question, answer is no.

Em theory is a closed system now.

No one would try a completely alternative

theory. There is one guy who derived

quantum mechanics from general relativity

after 30 years and has partially succeeded

but the answer to your question is "no way".

 

2) Fundamental research doesn't really have so

much to look for anymore except for unification

theories. The real problems are more and more

technical and technological like solving the partial

differential equations.