Could quantum electrodynamics theory be wrong ?

[Strange]

True but what about other theories of physics like statistical mechanics (both classical and quantum), thermodynamics, chaos theory, dynamical systems etc?

 

Do all these theories have a an equal amount of experimental evidence supporting them like general relativity and quantum mechanics for example?

 

As well as being directly tested, many of these are so fundamental to other branches of physics that they are implicitly tested whenever any experiment is done.

 

BTW I don't think I would classify chaos theory as physics. It is a mathematical model that apears to have real-world application in many areas.

[ajb]

True but what about other theories of physics like statistical mechanics (both classical and quantum), thermodynamics, chaos theory, dynamical systems etc?

Really these (and general relativity really) are what I would call 'physical frameworks' in which to build theories. That is within these set ups we build physical models.

 

So statistical mechanics and thermodynamics have given us good frameworks. There is plenty of experimental evidence for this. The same with quantum mechanics, general relativity and classical/quantum field theory.

 

Now chaos theory and dynamical systems are really branches of mathematics, in fact they overlap. If your question is one of if dynamical systems theory has been applied in physics then the answer is yes.

 

 

So what evidence is there for statistical mechanics (both classical and quantum statistical mechanics) and chaos theory?

Statistical mechanics is important in gas laws, phase changes, the notion of entropy and information... all of these notions have been used to understand the natural world as well as in engineering. Statistical mechanics relates the average properties of a collection of objects to the bulk thermodynamics properties. Again, this important in chemical engineering for example.

Edited April 27, 2016 by ajb

[swansont]

The biggest problem with physics today is that there are too many theories but not enough experiment or observational evidence to determine which of those theories is a more accurate explanation of the world.

 

In order to get an idea of what I'm complaining about please open the Wikipedia template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Branches_of_physics.

 

In this Wikipedia template you will see many different branches and theories of physics but there is noway to tell just by reading it which of these branches or theories of physics is more correct or offers a better explanation of reality.

They are branches, not competitors. Nuclear physics describes the nucleus of atoms. Optical physics describes how light behaves. One doesn't inherently off a better explanation of the world. It depends on what you are looking at.

 

Put another way, this is like asking if a wrench is a better tool than a hammer or a screwdriver. It depends on what you're doing.

 

If the complaint is that there are many branches, blame nature for being complex.

[seriously disabled]

What is still amazing to me is that some very high brow and abstract mathematics can have some bearing on the real world through physics.

Yes but what we don't yet know is in what sense do mathematical objects exist.

Edited April 27, 2016 by seriously disabled

[Strange]

Yes but what we don't yet know is in what sense do mathematical objects exist.

 

Philosophers have been arguing about that since mathematics was invented (or discovered, depending which side of the argument you are on). I'm not sure it really matters.

[seriously disabled]

Philosophers have been arguing about that since mathematics was invented (or discovered, depending which side of the argument you are on). I'm not sure it really matters.

Yes it does matter.

[Sensei]

Yes but what we don't yet know is in what sense do mathematical objects exist.

 

Particles are not mathematical objects.

Mathematics is used to describe their properties, and interactions with other particles.

[Phi for All]

Yes it does matter.

 

FWIW, you have a habit of setting up situations where there is no way for you to be satisfied. You're told that the debate has been ongoing and inconclusive, yet the immediate conclusion is the only solution you'll accept. It's likely not gong to happen, so you put yourself in a perpetual skeptical state, which is profoundly unproductive.

 

Why does it matter to you so much?

[swansont]

Yes but what we don't yet know is in what sense do mathematical objects exist.

 

 

What is a mathematical object, and what is the relevance to whether physics works at describing how nature behaves?

[Strange]

Yes it does matter.

 

Why? Mathematics works whether mathematical objects exist or not. (And that question probably depends on what you mean by "mathematical object" and "exist".)

 

And physics works, whether mathematical objects exist or not.

[ajb]

Yes but what we don't yet know is in what sense do mathematical objects exist.

 

Usual school of thought is that mathematical objects do not exist in the real world.

 

But that not really an issue. The point is that we can use mathematics to get good descriptions of nature. More than that, we get models that allow us to make predictions and compare these against nature. Does nature actually realises these mathematical structures? This is another question and one that seem rooted in philosophy and not science.

 

 

Philosophers have been arguing about that since mathematics was invented (or discovered, depending which side of the argument you are on). I'm not sure it really matters.

I think it is discovered and I have reasons for thinking this. But this really is philosophy as no calculation or experiment is going to settle the issue. Also it seems to make no difference to how people actually work.

 

 

What is a mathematical object ...?

Not sure I or anyone can answer that properly. However, when we see one we recognise it.

Edited April 28, 2016 by ajb

[StringJunky]

Mathematics is a an ensemble of methodologies, based on discrete logical constructs, with functions useful for accounting, calculating and describing what people think quantitatively. It exists in the sense that it describes a mode of how people think sometimes. i.e. mathematically.

[seriously disabled]

I could bet my life that most of the physics that is taken to be true today will simply turn out to be wrong in a 100,000 or even a million years from now.

 

Religious dogma and superstition has corrupted everything and that is why science has progressed very little.

 

Only a 1000 years ago humans were still savages and barbaric. Science didn't exist back then and the people back then believed that religion and superstition is reality (and this is what held them back).

 

During most of human history (and prehistory), science didn't exist and humans were savages and completely barbaric. Also religion held those people back from discovery and the development of science because they believed in religious superstition and miracles.

 

And it's only since the 1700s that humans have began to develop true science and today (in the year 2016) I believe that we are still only in the very beginning stage of discovery.

 

This means that most of what we know today about physics, chemistry and biology might turn out to be wrong in the future and will need to be corrected.

Edited May 19, 2016 by seriously disabled

[Phi for All]

This means that most of what we know today might turn about physics, chemistry and biology might turn out to be wrong in the future and will need to be corrected.

 

What you fail to grasp is that being wrong and needing to be corrected are NOT synonymous. It's unlikely that what we know now of physics will turn out to be wrong, but it's inevitable that it will need to be corrected. That's how it's supposed to work, constant updates as we increase our knowledge.

 

I'm not sure what one can do with a stance like this. Are you arguing that we should all stop learning mainstream physics because our understanding of it isn't perfect? Why bother learning it if it will turn out to be different 100,000 years from now, is that what you're suggesting? Aren't we constrained to using our best current explanations?

[seriously disabled]

What you fail to grasp is that being wrong and needing to be corrected are NOT synonymous. It's unlikely that what we know now of physics will turn out to be wrong, but it's inevitable that it will need to be corrected. That's how it's supposed to work, constant updates as we increase our knowledge.

 

I'm not sure what one can do with a stance like this. Are you arguing that we should all stop learning mainstream physics because our understanding of it isn't perfect? Why bother learning it if it will turn out to be different 100,000 years from now, is that what you're suggesting? Aren't we constrained to using our best current explanations?

I don't know the answer to all of these questions but I think that we are basically constrained to go with our current best, mainstream science explanations.

[Strange]

Religious dogma and superstition has corrupted everything and that is why science has progressed very little.

 

Why do you think religion has any effect on science?

 

Only a 1000 years ago humans were still savages and barbaric. Science didn't exist back then and the people back then believed that religion and superstition is reality (and this is what held them back).

 

During most of human history (and prehistory), science didn't exist and humans were savages and completely barbaric. Also religion held those people back from discovery and the development of science because they believed in religious superstition and miracles.

 

That is just nonsense. People were not savages 1,000 years ago (by any reasonable definition of savage). People have been engaged in rational and evidence based study of the world for many thousands of years. (Euclid and Eratosthenes come to mind immediately.)

Science has developed incrementally over thousands of years.

 

And it's only since the 1700s that humans have began to develop true science

 

 

The development of scientific methods is much earlier than that. Even if you think that science began with Francis Bacon you are about two centuries out.

I don't know the answer to all of these questions but I think that we are basically constrained to go with our current best, mainstream science explanations.

 

 

Then why are you constantly making anti-science comments?

[Phi for All]

Then why are you constantly making anti-science comments?

 

This is usually my impression as well. When I see a post from seriously disabled, it's usually talking about science being messed up, or inadequate, or lacking in some vague way. But I never get a sense of how to fix the problem. At one point I thought it was justification for giving up on the study of science, but assigning motives to a particular stance isn't always accurate or fair.

[Eise]

Could quantum electrodynamics theory be wrong ? Everything about this theory does not fit into shape in my mind. I am no expert on the subject, but maybe a better theory for explaining electromagnetism needs to found. Or is it so well founded and proven ?

For example virtual particles and them being only "in the math". I even read they can go back in time, this seems ridiculous. Also being able to attract particles by sending or "shooting" particles seems very odd to me, seems to defy logic. This also being just "in the math". Another thing is how photons themselves are the quanta of electromagnetic energy.

Electromagnetism works very simply and elegantly, it is odd that such an elaborate and odd theory is needed to describe it. Maybe the universe has basic forces, that are part of it's basic existence, sort of like how the electron is a basic particle.

 

Feynman's statement about this is legendary: