Is physics inherently subjective?
Is physics inherently subjective?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>Are inherently objective things inherently subjective ?
No.
Because every theory is based on observation, and as of now at least all observation is subjective, all physics is subjective as a science
Is this line of thinking a modern phenomenon?
>theory
>based on observation
Theory is based on formulas
Observations just confirm them
Physics is hardly subjective since everyone will get the same result.
A photons speed in vaccum doesn't change because someone else is clocking it.
If the observer directly affects the observation, how can the following theory be considered anything but subjective?
No. It doesn't matter where you go in space, our understanding of physics will apply.
what is "subjective"?
>Implying everything about our current model of physics is correct.
Shiggy diggy
Well, maybe not ENTIRELY on a microscopic scale but we've done pretty well to comprehend reality elsewhere.
I implore you to find a single flaw in our current understanding.
Because the theory tells you HOW the observer effects the observation
I'm probably in over my head here, so I'm just gonna quote the book that presented the idea to me
>We can accurately observe either the position or the velocity of a subatomic particle -But not both at once. The observer must choose his experimental set-up, but by doing so he excludes (or rather must "sacrifice") some other possible set-up and its results. Furthermore, the measuring apparatus has to be included in the description of events because it has a decisive but uncontrollable influence upon the experimental set-up.
>The science of microphysics, on account of the basic "complementary" situation, is faced with the impossibility of eliminating the effects of the observer by determinable correctives and has therefore to abandon in principle any objective understanding of physical phenomena. Where classical physics still saw "determined causal natural laws of nature" we now look only for "statistic laws" with "primary possibilites".
He's wrong.
It just means that instead of studying a system where the observer is not part of it
You are now studying an observer-observation system.
But since you can step outside the observer-observation system and predict all the outcomes, it is still objective.
>I implore you to find a single flaw in our current understanding.
This is fallacy. But don't get me wrong, Im not some edgy le I hate physics guy. On the contrary I have a deep interest for physics.
And we have flaws in our current understanding, otherwise someone would have allready written the unified theory of everything, and we would be able to create artificial wormholes and super novas, but we cant, yet.
To imply that we today have already understood the entire baffeling concept of physics is laughable, because such things have been said throughout history all the time, especially at times when we knew jack shit.
One fun example is how apperently the energy principle can be broken when quantum fluctuation occurs, which is one flaw in itself.
If the observation is hingent on the observer, how can the underlying physics be objectively determined? If the observer-observation system produces different results depending on the observer, the observation itself cannot be considered objective, i.e. it cannot be determined independent of the observer.
>energy principle can be broken when quantum fluctuation occurs
nope
It doesn't depend on the observer
It depends on your measurement device
Imagine you are in the ocean, if you use a wave-meter, you measure waves
If you use a whale-net, you catch a whale
For some reason, you can't do both at the same time
Catching whales or measuring waves is still objective
Read before saying "nope". I thought you where /scientist/ here? Then you don't say "nope" when someone claims something, you say "prove it". Thats the fundamentals of science you idiot. And I can prove it.
That article provides several solutions to that "problem"
Such as?
fluctuations happen before planck time and therefore do not violate any principle
and they do in fact
Can't find that, can you please quote it?
Because when I read it and other articles about this problem, it clearly says that the energy princple appears to be broken.
According to quantum mechanics the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.
Thus energy is created and destroyed. Giving us the idea that the energy principle have been broken.
"The amplitude of quantum fluctuations is controlled by Planck's constant ℏ"
The principle comes from a formula that only applies to >ℏ
How do we explain that particles and electromagnetic waves can pop into and out of existence it is not in fact breaking the energy principle?
>Observations just confirm them
It just means the theory is consistent with observations.
Yes because math is inherently subjective.
Oh look, it's a
>we can't know nuffin'
Thread
because the energy principle only applies at a larger scale than the one at which it happens
plus the total energy is 0 because fluctuations cancel each other
And what if they don't necessarily do that?
You're conflating ideas. Observation is not entirely subjective. We can observe electrons with machines, which has nothing to do with human experience. In fact, a human can never experience and electron the way a measuring device cant. What you're trying to say is that science is inductive, not subjective.
Please elaborate? Do you mean that the principle only applies to a scale larger than the one where it don't?
No, virtual particle creation leads to the production and decay/annihilation of particles almost faster than they can be measured. Yes there's a seeming violation, but only for a very small amount of time.
You'll never see an entire atom pop out of the vacuum, for example
Think about it this way:
"Is physics surjective?"
Ba dumm tsss
One person argues with another "physics is subjective"
He is then defenestrated by another man who claims physics is objective
But, alas, the man does not fall, because he observes gravity differently than the man who threw him from the window.
Haha
>subjective
*surjective
That's because it's a measurement. Something can be 1 meter long or 100 centimeters, but the length is still the same. So to answer your question no and you're a fucking idiot.
Posts like these make me honestly reconsider my life and really just how I fucked up.