We don’t know everything but what we do know is very important.

Thread Starter

Ya’akov

Joined Jan 27, 2019
9,069
My comments here are not comments about any specific person or idea. While I might disagree with some expressed opinions, I recognize that my opinion is just that—an opinion—and no more authoritative than anyone else’s. I write this because I have read many threads speculating on the nature of electricity and the possibility that, roughly, ”things don’t work the way we think they do”. Some of these threads are about an application of what we* can prove about how things work to correcting misconceptions brought about by extending the isomorphic models we use for everyday application. Some of them, though, are speculation about why the more complete models are wrong based on the same thing. I want to express my opinion on why the latter class is clearly (to me) the wrong direction which is absolutely inappropriate in the aforementioned threads.

*The collective group of scientists and those who believe in the consensus of their work.


When Einstein set out to understand general relativity, he began by setting a benchmark for success of his theory. It had to produce the same results for every case where Newton was predictive and accurate. That is, for all terrestrial cases where speeds were not a large fraction of the speed of light, his theory had to comport with Newtonian physics.

Why is this important? Because there a many people who learning about the increased predictive power of GR conclude that is supersedes Newton, an opinion not shared by Einstein. Instead, Newton was incomplete, not wrong. Any theory that has repeatable, predictive power in a particular domain, and impresses those who know a lot more than I (or you) ever will about it, to the point where they deem is a “law”, is not wrong.

Our understanding about things, of course, improves over time. Our models are refined. We get closer and closer to understanding how all things operate together but those theories that are successful, that lead to working technology an predict new results that do come about are not going to be thrown out because of something new that is discovered.

Instead, we will, as Einstein did, add to them to make them more complete. This is all to say there is no hidden surprise that will, for example, invalidate Ohm’s Law in favor of something else because Ohm’s Law accurately describes what we can measure. And this is the key. Resorting to “we don’t know everything” doesn’t absolve you from the requirement that your new theory comport with the successful old ones. If your new theory predicts something different than the current, successful ones—even if it can predict some other things the old one can’t—it is wrong. It has to include what we do know while adding new things, just adding new things isn’t enough.

And, I will add, most of the speculation that I am referring to predicts nothing at all. It just imagines possibilities that often don’t account for known, measurable phenomena, and in that way they aren’t even wrong.
 

DickCappels

Joined Aug 21, 2008
10,153
Most of us have unrealistic models in our heads (and some have rocks in their heads but that's a different topic) We learn and use them because they work. For example: How many times have you heard somebody say that the energy stored in a capacitor is stored on the plates? - An incorrect model that works as long as you don't go too deeply into it.
 

xox

Joined Sep 8, 2017
838
In other words, no physical model is 100% complete. Some are just more so than others. Such as with the previous example given, Einstein's General Relativity field equations versus the calculus of Newtonian physics.

Of course besides that, you also have to consider the actual level of accuracy possible (not to mention the error domain) when applying any particular theorem to some experimental setup. Pointlike equations for example can yield very inaccurate results when considering things which are not very "point-like". (Eg. Neutron stars.)
 

Thread Starter

Ya’akov

Joined Jan 27, 2019
9,069
And, I will add, most of the speculation that I am referring to predicts nothing at all. It just imagines possibilities that often don’t account for known, measurable phenomena, and in that way they aren’t even wrong.
 
Top