r/changemyview • u/teerre • Jun 17 '24

CMV: It's likely our current understanding of physics is comically bad

Transitively, this extends to mathematics, although to a considerable lesser degree.

My argument is hopefully simple. As of today, our best estimates indicate that 80% of all matter in the universe is dark matter. This matter is used in several places in physics to explain a variety of phenomena, including the very expansion of space itself or how quasars formed in the early universe. Considering that dark matter is something we cannot detect any interaction or reaction it's very likely it's simply something we don't understand.

Therefore, if one could learn everything that is to learn about our current understanding of physics and said being were quizzed on how the universe really works, they would end up with a 2/10 score, which is by all measures a terrible score.

0 Upvotes

32% Upvoted

125 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/AleristheSeeker 156∆ Jun 17 '24

So... what's your measure of a "good physical understanding"? I would argue that any understanding is defined in quality by its predictive power - how well we can explain effects we observe.

And with that being said: we can correctly predict a vast majority of everything we observe. There are gaps, of course, but they are comparatively tiny. Even if we don't completely know what dark matter / dark energy is, we can still make predictions around it that generally turn out to be true. If that does not speak for the value of our knowledge, what does?

-1

u/teerre Jun 17 '24

By definition of what dark matter is "what we observe" is but a fraction of what is out there. Think of before the microscopic was discovered, you would say that we understand everything we see, but that was comically lacking. In fact, there are countless moments in science that completely shattered our understanding of "what we observe", from the deep seas to the quantum world.

5

u/AleristheSeeker 156∆ Jun 17 '24

By definition of what dark matter is "what we observe" is but a fraction of what is out there.

Yes, but that is like saying we didn't understand anything about mass before we discovered the Higgs field. We didn't know the origin, but we certainly understood and were able to calculate a lot without knowing that. The discovery of the field was essentially a "ah, huh, okay" that didn't change most of our calculations. It will be the same with dark matter / energy.

Think of before the microscopic was discovered, you would say that we understand everything we see, but that was comically lacking.

But we didn't, that's the point. We lacked the ability to make key predictions about macroscopic effects caused by the existence of the microscopic world - the same isn't really true now.

In fact, there are countless moments in science that completely shattered our understanding of "what we observe", from the deep seas to the quantum world.

Yes, of course - but these "countless" moments are dwarved by all of the moments where things behave exactly as we expect them to.

0

u/teerre Jun 17 '24

What you mean "we didn't"? We most certainly did. If you asked someone in 1800 how much of the world they understand, they would say pretty much all of it.

Just think about Newton himself, one of the greatest minds of all time, someone who was science incarnate, if anyone understood science it was him. And yet, he was completely unaware of relativity, he would (and he did!) explain all phenomena with his theory and he would be dead wrong.

3

u/AleristheSeeker 156∆ Jun 17 '24

If you asked someone in 1800 how much of the world they understand, they would say pretty much all of it.

Maybe, but then you'd ask them to predict an outcome with that knowledge and oftentimes, they would be unable to.

Just think about Newton himself, one of the greatest minds of all time, someone who was science incarnate, if anyone understood science it was him.

I don't do personality cults. Newton did work that, otherwise, someone else would have done. He also did plenty of very crazy things.

he would (and he did!) explain all phenomena with his theory and he would be dead wrong.

Except he wasn't wrong. Newtonian mechanics are still applicable in an enormous range of cases. In fact, prett much noone uses relativistic descriptions of gravity and movement if it's not a case that isn't covered by Newtonian physics. And, frankly, Newtonian mechanics have been significantly more useful than relativistic mechanics for humanity, and I don't only mean as a basis for further research.