What does Veeky Forums think about "the end" of physics?

Highly doubt we're anywhere near that point. There are still tons of things we either don't have a clue about or have a pretty hand wavey theory on.

Examples?

Different guy but for a highly relevant example to real life explain High Tc Superconductors.

We will never, ever be sure that we have a completely correct picture of the universe. There comes a point that we are fast approaching where you can't really test the theory.Today only a fraction of physicists work to discover new fundamental physics (e.g. physics beyond the standard model (e.g. string theory that you fags like to mention so much)). What they do is run experiments at particle accelerators 24/7 and analyze the data while waiting for accelerators to slowly be upgraded with new tech/engineering. Other physicists aren't inherently less intelligent or anything, thats just not their area of expertise. What others do is come up with clever ways to use physics to do useful things. There already was a time when physics was thought to be just about over, but then quantum mechanics was invented

>What others do is come up with clever ways to use physics to do useful things.
That's an engineer according all the definitions of engineer I've encountered as an engineering student.

engineers aren't scientists tho. Also if you're receiving grants to do physics, publishing in physics journals and have physics in your job title then you are a physicist.

New experiences, and inductive reasoning about them, and scientific theories about them, can never end, simply because it's not possible to see the entire future or experience the whole present. The "end of science" idea is borderline retarded.

There are fields where applied mathematics, physics and engineering overlap though
>theoretical mechanics
In solid mechanics there is still a lot of fundamental work being done on fracture, plasticity and nonlinear dynamics. Not to mention fluid mechanics and the shitshow that is turbulence.

Are people working in that field engineers or physicists? Or both?

>engineers aren't scientists tho.

Engineers aren't *necessarily* scientists, but they *can* be scientists.

idk, sounds like physics to me. Most science overlaps at the highest level. I'm sure it's grouped into some larger category. What department would a professor of this work for, ya know? It's a case by case basis

Same stupid question as when Lord Kelvin opined it.
There were just two "small clouds", phenomena which were not completely understood. Those "clouds" turned out to be Relativity and Quantum Mechanics!

>Parentheses like an equation
This is improper grammar, and bad writing.

The end of physics would mean the end science and a complete understanding of all natural phenomena because all of science can be generalized as physics. So I can't wait for end of physics, we would be Rick-tier gods.

No, it wouldn't. Once physics is complete, we go to stamp collecting. Still lots of things worth observing even if you understand how they function and came about on an intimate level.

I think physics is about done. I conceptualized it already:

peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469911#msg1469911

Someone needs to do the math on it. Unfortunately everyone I seem to tell about it seems completely unwilling to spend 10 minutes reading it.

I guess faggots in sci don't like science. Maybe I'll give it to b.

Another good point is that once one manages to utilize the rules governing written language, they can read and write books.

Science will be the same. Physics just describes how the language functions.

>Physics is close to nearing its end.
We dont even know how little we know yet. We are hairless space monkeys who have models that describe the extremely small, models that describe the extremely large, no idea how they fit together, and a speculative guess as to the mechanisms behind the models. You are severely overestimating our intelligence as a species.

>then we go to stamp collecting
trivial, we wouldn't even need observations (maybe just for confirmation) if we had a standard model that explained everything

Actually. I do know how little we know, then I completed physics.

No one wants to acknowledge it though because they're afraid it's correct.

The standard model that explains all the mechanics is in that fucking link I keep linking to.

I'm literally telling you how the universe operated on the smallest scale and everyone ignores it.

So you're probably right. It will probably be never that humans figure out physics.

Secondly, we don't know all the possible arrangements and patterns, even with the mechanics, which by the way are sitting in that fucking link a few posts up.

To know everything, you have to observe everything. You could probably model and derive a lot of the arrangements/patterns from the mechanics though. However, the universe is a lot bigger computer than anything we'll build.

yeah I guess there would be computational limits to what we can model so we can't know everything (at the same time) but if we wanted to know something specific enough we could model it without issues
So we can ask our standard model anything and get an answer it just has to specific enough, that's essentially knowing everything and anything just not all at the same time.

You barely know how to structure a sentence in a way that gets your point across. Im surprised you know how to use a computer.

News flash: Physics already ended, many times. It first ended after Newton with a full 3D description of the universe using the mighty power of what you typically see in a Calc 3 class. And that was it, Physics = done.

But then Einstein needed to make some money you know? His job as a fucking patent clerk or whatever wasn't paying the bills right and then... OY OY look at this. OY look AT THIS. What did these mathematicians just fucking do? OY DID MATHEMATICIANS JUST DEFINE ABSTRACT TOPOLOGICAL SPACES AND MANIFOLDS AND DEFINED THE DERIVATIVE AND INTEGRAL ON THESE ABSTRACT MANIFOLDS? OOOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY. D-does this mean? OY DOES THIS MEAN 4D PHYSICS? YES IT FUCKING DOES, HERE COMES THE MONEY MOTHERFUCKER HERE WE GOOO

Money, Money, Money, Money
Money, Money, Money, Money

Ching Ching, Bling Bling, Cut the Chatter
You ain't talking money, Then your talking don't matter
Ching Ching, Bling Bling, Pattin' Pockets
You make a dolla dolla, Can't a damn soul stop it
Shock it, Uhhh

But then Einstein and a couple of people after him finished Physics again. That was it for 4D physics. Any physical object possible could now be realized as an abstract manifold and then you could do all the calculus on it. Basically Physics was done as fuck but then

OYYYYYYY
OYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
DID YOU JUST SAY FUCKING 11 DIMENSIONAL STRINGS VIBRATING IN THE MULTI QUANTUMVERSE AS QUASI PARALLEL RICK AND MORTY VIRTUAL PARTICLES?

HERE COMES THE MONEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY

Here comes the money (Here we go, money, Uh)
Here comes the money
Money, Money, Money, Money
Money, Money, Money, Money

Ching Ching, Bling Bling, Cut the Chatter
You ain't talking money, Then your talking don't matter
Ching Ching, Bling Bling, Pattin' Pockets
You make a dolla dolla, Can't a damn soul stop it
Shock it, Uhhh

Anyways, if you are not getting my point. All I'm saying is that modern physics is a bunch of bullshit and lies.

Wrong. We have primitive, messy models. Nothing more.

Elon Musk has done nothing you dumb cunt. New technology comes from scientists.

But does it really? It would make more sense to say that new technology comes from the people who finance the scientists. I mean, scientists do not create technology. They create ideas. Then what actually creates technology is money. You use the money to take the scientist's idea and build a real version. And then it would make sense to credit the source of that money, which in this case is Elon Musk. I mean, what is a fucking scientist compared to Elon? Scientists and engineers are basically manual laborers. Basically janitor tier.

I've got the red pill for you brother.

Fields are fucking bullshit.

Physical particles interact with physical particles.

I wrote it all out:

peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469911#msg1469911

I only asked for money if someone wins a Nobel with it.

Pretty sure it's correct. And it's simply, and it applies to everything. No more bullshit. It's free too. Take it, do whatever you want with it.

True information should be freely shared. I don't need the money.

I'm typing on a phone. Thanks.

>trivial, we wouldn't even need observations (maybe just for confirmation) if we had a standard model that explained everything
No one is going to ever be able to crunch out a N ~ 10^23 body problem using the standard model. Advancements will always have to be made in averaging processes to find macroscopic effects if you want to do anything useful involving more than 100 particles.

That's why I described the full model. You're still not going to number crunch the whole thing.

The universe is comprised of information. A computer is made out of information.

The universe has many magnitudes more information than any computer we will build. It can also compute events using smaller/faster particles than we can harness and use.

What do you think it is?

My model isn't messy, and it accounts for pretty much everything.

Thats no excuse for retardedly structured sentences.

Did you fail to understand what I typed?

If you didn't, then I effectively communicated with it.

If people refuse to read what I linked to, which takes a total of 15 minutes, then they have a closed mind and refuse to understand.

peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469911#msg1469911

Here's another intelligent idea.

If your only response to something is an ad hominem attack, the idea you're responding to is probably worth considering. Otherwise you'd have pointed out an obvious mistake that actually matters.

I read it and it's mostly wrong and useless. Stop shilling this and pick up an actual textbook if you want to understand physics.

What do I have to believe that String Theory isn't the end of physics ignoring Dark matter which is close to nearing a solution.

What was wrong? Sounds like your best response is still ad hominem?

Upset your textbooks are wrong?

I think there is probably something to do with gravity missing from our current understanding. and whether/how gravity interoperates with or emerges from the standard model

I already explained dark matter in that link I posted.

I said it was virtual particles. Obviously I didn't make up the concept of virtual particles.

I did, however, say how we are observing phenomena on the macro scale unaccounted for, and I explained the reasons for why virtual particles are that missing variable and how they operate.

Srsly, what the fuck is wrong with this board. You'd think you'd be happy you got the model that explains the whole universe on every scale. You'd think it would be expected that it's be posted on Veeky Forums by some random retard... Veeky Forums is a better form of social communication than faggot peer review journals. There's no barrier to entry. That's why I posted it here instead of fucking reddit.

Whatever. The Veeky Forums faggots don't want it. They'd rather be retarded and hide their brains in books they paid too much money for that can't explain anything in a simple fucking manner without resorting to magic because I said so and vague greenery.

That's cool. Maybe I'll give it to /b/ tomorrow. They won't baw about where their IQ is.

I explained that in my fucking link.

peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469911#msg1469911

Gravity, warps in time space can be explained with collisions and vacuum.

>peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469911#msg1469911

ah, I have read your article. I think I am in basic agreement with you, that there is a deterministic informational model which underlies the probabilistic model. that somehow information and mass are coupled?

what is your opinion on the topological nature of interactions when extended into a worldvolume? I have a theory that energetic reactions in spacetime leave a gravitational imprint on the spactime, which could in principle be measured.

I haven't studied topology that much. I know it exists and have read a little bit on it.

That's a big part of why I didn't write out the math. I can't without studying math for the next 5 - 20 years. I already work 340+ days a year.

I saw all the interactions in my head, and I described them as I saw them.

I also don't understand what you mean by worldvolume. Is that a term I need to look up?

I think you're on the right track in attempting to measure these reactions. I talked with my friend about it and we considered using the information to measure either the smallest volume of space, or the smallest length of time.

I haven't figured out what an experiment for it would be, and I figured somebody else could take the concepts and use them to figure out application or experiments to demonstrate the concepts.

There is one issue with measuring the deterministic actions all of the way up from the smallest scope though.

I don't know if we can build a tool small enough to interact with the smallest particle. At that point, the only valid way I can think of to measure that particle is by using probability.
I also had a neat idea a few hours ago. Rather than our universe starting with a big bang, I got the idea that our sponge universe soaked up its initial matter. This would explain why matter is found in galactic clusters. It didn't all come through the same point. It may also help describe why the galactic clusters are accelerating apart.

I appreciate you reading it. I think you understand it from what you said. It's yours to keep now. Share it with others. :)

I'll bookmark this thread and check if back if you respond further.

A worldvolume is simply an object traced through spacetime. You can imagine it as the head of a needle. As time evolves, reality weaves itself together.

But once the paradigm shift occurs, the work of physics will have just begun. Imagine the time it will take to untangle and understand how the knots have been woven (encoded) since the beginning of time.

Thanks for the definition.

I am unsure if space-time or the universe has a physical component.

I divided the universe across time into its smallest measurable unit, which I called a "moment" or a "frame".

In between each of these, I suggested virtual particles come in and go out.

When they are here, particles occupy every location in the universe, mostly virtual particles.

So your worldvolume, over time, would be crashing into lots of other particles in an outward fashion in every vector in that direction... Like dominoes or bowling pins. This would explain things like square inverse law phenomena in sound or light.

I suggested gravity is caused by vacuum of virtual particles leaving between moments.

Electro-magnetism too, but the rotational force of the electrons, all lined up and revolving in the same direction to its neighboring atom causes the current.

Strong force is probably vacuum coupled with neutron and proton with revolving particles in opposite directions. They basically constantly bump into each other and drive themselves inward. This would suggest that perhaps a neutron is actually very similar if not the same as electron (has rotational moment spinning in the same direction).

Does any of that help answer your question?

The end of classical physics is essentially the end of physics.