Rules regarding reusing files from the Library?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

Just to remind you, the standard scientific philosophy is that theories can only be disproved, never proved.

And in actual practice theories are not discarded until a better theory is available and even then the old theories may be used if they are easier to calculate with (as Newton).

Right.
And if we're going to rip into String Theory, it is worth remembering that the Standard Model isn't a theory either but rather a collection of theories spliced together.

The name says it all: Model.
Mostly curve fitting, too, if you ask the String/Brane/M-Theory partisans.

The divide breaks down primarily along the lines of theoreticians and experimentalists. And the two camps are pretty religious about their beliefs.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

Just to remind you, the standard scientific philosophy is that theories can only be disproved, never proved.

And in actual practice theories are not discarded until a better theory is available and even then the old theories may be used if they are easier to calculate with (as Newton).

Hm, isn't it only, that a theory has to be falsifiable? You can prove it, in the constraints it is supposed to work in. Otherwise you wouldn't have causality, just correlations.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Hm, isn't it only, that a theory has to be falsifiable? You can prove it, in the constraints it is supposed to work in.

You can show that a theory, within experimental error, predicts what actually occurs in certain situations. If the theory also predicts some things that have not yet been observed, when/if those things are observed, it's another good mark for the theory.

But you can never prove that the theory is actually correct - that it, that there are no circumstances under which what the theory predicts will differ from what's actually observed.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

But you can never prove that the theory is actually correct - that it, that there are no circumstances under which what the theory predicts will differ from what's actually observed.

Uh-huh.
Strictly speaking, Einstein is still on probation. Gravity waves or not.
He shot his mouth once too often about quantum theory and there was that whole thing about the fudge factor he put in and later tried to take out and then turned out to be necessary after all...

But until something better comes along...

(I always liked how Doc Smith's 50's SKYLARK revision waved relativity away: "It was a theory... and we *are* moving faster than light.")

[dickloraine]

The theory of relativsm is accepted. As is the quantum theory. Problem is, they don't quite fit together. Something is missing, some higher theory, that can explain both of them in a common framework.

[DiapDealer]

Something unifying, possibly? Maybe grand, even?

[HarryT]

Yes, that's exactly what String Theory is intended to be: a unified theory which can combine quantum mechanism and general relativity. Although each theory works fine in the realm of the very small and the very large, respectively, they just don't play nicely together . GR is assuredly "wrong" in the sense that it's a classical field theory, rather than a quantum theory, but even though it's wrong, it gives the right answers in a certain domain.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Something unifying, possibly? Maybe grand, even?

No, something even better! Something like, a theory of everything! Like amazon, but in science

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, that's exactly what String Theory is intended to be: a unified theory which can combine quantum mechanism and general relativity. Although each theory works fine in the realm of the very small and the very large, respectively, they just don't play nicely together . GR is assuredly "wrong" in the sense that it's a classical field theory, rather than a quantum theory, but even though it's wrong, it gives the right answers in a certain domain.

Like Newton and Maxwell.
Their theories are nominally wrong/incomplete but they reflect reality well enough that we built an entire civilization off their work. Of course, then came Rutherford... and physics has never been the same.

One problem with modern physics (and the GUTS camp more than the String gang) is they don't look far enough afield. Too much effort goes into looking at the same known things from different angles and not enough looking for what they are missing that keeps the two theories from blending.

Shakespeare comes to mind.

[dickloraine]

I think "wrong" is a bit to strong. Maxwells formulas are still completely correct, as long as you don't expect them to work in quantum processes. We just can now explain electro-mavnetism, weak and strong force with just one theory. But you won't use quantum-mechanic theory to build a light bulp. The same is true for example for chemestry. You should be able to calculate that from quantum physics, but that doesn't make chemistry wrong.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

I think "wrong" is a bit to strong. Maxwells formulas are still completely correct, as long as you don't expect them to work in quantum processes. We just can now explain electro-mavnetism, weak and strong force with just one theory. But you won't use quantum-mechanic theory to build a light bulp. The same is true for example for chemestry. You should be able to calculate that from quantum physics, but that doesn't make chemistry wrong.

Which is why I added "incomplete". There are retroactive caveats to both Newton and Maxwell and sooner or later we will find caveats to Einstein. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

(And, actually, back in my school days we did apply quantum physics to physical chemistry. Some of the derivations were kinda neat.)

[dickloraine]

But what means incomplete in these cases? All of these aren't theories that claim to explain everything. Maxwells theory explains classic electro-magnetism. And it does that complete. Likewise, we know the limitations of both the theory of relativsm and the quantum theory.

With the chemistry example I just wanted to say, that you could use a different theory to talk about the same things. Especially if you can abstract from the underlying theories. Often we are even unable to show how a higher system interacts exactly with the underlying ones. It is difficult to impossible in biology and even more so in psychology and sociology. Everything has to just follow the simple laws of physics, but the systems that are build by them are to complex to be described this way. It is much more simple to use theories custom made for these fields.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

But what means incomplete in these cases?

They are incomplete because their theory don't always work: you need the caveats. They are pieces of a larger reality even in the realm where they are supposed to apply. And that is why it would be good to find holes in the current theories and models, so we can start looking into the greater reality beyond.

If nothing else, so we can tackle the "why's" and not just the "how's".