Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Physics hairline cracks.

The WiZard is In - 26-4-2011 at 10:52

Extracted from :—

MACROSCOPE
The Man Behind the Curtain
Physics is not always the seamless subject that it pretends to be
Tony Rothman
American Scientist 99:186 & ff
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2011/3/the-man-b...

It is also the view the field holds of itself and the way physics is
taught: Physics is the most fundamental of the natural sciences; it
explains Nature at its deepest level; the edifice it strives to
construct is all-encompassing, free of internal contradictions,
conceptually compelling and—above all—beautiful. The range of
phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive; it
underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a
physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks
in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under
the rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the
disconcerting result that the totality occasionally appears more like
Bruegel’s Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a
ramshackle structure of compartmentalized models soldered
together into a skewed heap of explanations as the whole jury-
rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.

IrC - 26-4-2011 at 19:38

That was the best physics article I have read in many years.

crazyboy - 26-4-2011 at 20:54

I have only taken introductory physics but a lot of what the article seems to say is that idealized equations are easy to solve but don' apply to reality, and when you try to describe the behavior of things in the real world "shit gets complicated" It seems the author labeled everything as "ad hoc" when real world equations get complicated. The real world is very complicated an d there are many interacting forces to consider. Just because an equation looks messy or hard to work out doesn't mean the fundamental system used to define it is flawed.

The WiZard is In - 27-4-2011 at 06:41

Quote: Originally posted by crazyboy  
I have only taken introductory physics but a lot of what the article seems to say is that idealized equations are easy to solve but don' apply to reality, and when you try to describe the behavior of things in the real world "shit gets complicated" It seems the author labeled everything as "ad hoc" when real world equations get complicated. The real world is very complicated an d there are many interacting forces to consider. Just because an equation looks messy or hard to work out doesn't mean the fundamental system used to define it is flawed.

Yup. Stoichiometry doesn't work in the Real world and
in geochemistry.

MagicJigPipe - 27-4-2011 at 23:03

Hmmmmm... Just seems like another person who got pissed off at the scientific process and decided to sound off. He's telling us all about shit that every physicist knows and he's lying about teachers and texts not mentioning it. These things are all widely known. He's acting as if the average physicist knows as much about physics as a lay person.

This reminds me of the relativity doubters. It's great to question things, really. But it just smacks of "conspiracy theory" type crap. Create a better model, devise an experiment that contradicts relativity (or at least supports your hypothesis) or just stop spreading rumors and gossip.

I see what this guy is saying but really, is there really a point here that hasn't been made before or that most physicists/chemists aren't aware of already? I don't think so. It was interesting, don't get me wrong, but it just had too much of a crybaby tone to it.