- if experiment disagrees with the theory, then the theory is wrong. It is irrelevant how great, how logic or how beautiful the theory is.
Why did you think otherwise?
Of course, dump that theory. A beautiful theory is one fitting many cases.
From what I search in the internet, it seems like relativity theory isn't going to fit in a quantum environment soon.
So yeah, there's a big IF condition in that theory.
And hypothesis usually comes before observation tho.
Since people need to hypothesize something, then they put effort into finding proof of it.
The procedure should be like "I found a generalization of this theory" -> "I generalized the theory" -> "It explained something the previous theory couldn't explain." -> "I will try to find counter-example that my theory is wrong" -> "I will test if my example defeat the theory or not"
Brief history of quantum physics:
During the early 19th century,
chemical research by
John Dalton and
Amedeo Avogadro lent weight to the
atomic theory of matter, an idea that
James Clerk Maxwell,
Ludwig Boltzmann and others built upon to establish the
kinetic theory of gases. The successes of kinetic theory gave further credence to the idea that matter is composed of atoms, yet the theory also had shortcomings that would only be resolved by the development of quantum mechanics.
[2] The existence of atoms was not universally accepted among physicists or chemists;
Ernst Mach, for example, was a staunch anti-atomist.
[3]
Ludwig Boltzmann suggested in 1877 that the energy levels of a physical system, such as a
molecule, could be discrete (rather than continuous).
Boltzmann's rationale for the presence of discrete energy levels in molecules such as those of iodine gas had its origins in his statistical thermodynamics and statistical mechanics theories and was backed up by mathematical arguments, as would also be the case twenty years later with the first
quantum theory put forward by
Max Planck.
In 1900, the German physicist Max Planck, who
had never believed in discrete atoms, reluctantly introduced the idea that energy is
quantized in order to derive a formula for the observed frequency dependence of the energy emitted by a
black body, called
Planck's law, that included a
Boltzmann distribution (applicable in the classical limit). Planck's law
[4] can be stated as follows:
So he tried to generalize the thing altho it's likely he couldn't see the atom at that time.
Let S the set of all human observations at that time(1900)
Planck's law and Boltzmann's law both fit S with zero loss.
So we observe in reality, there exists two laws that is fundamentally different, fits S.
The existence of Planck's law should encourage people to experiment in the case they thought it was extreme.
So they would eventually having the set S', that prove one of them is wrong, hopefully.
Calculus proved its worth through experiments; you can always compare the calculation for area or volume under a curve and then do an old-fashioned
I can't agree with you at this point. You don't need to test math.
Try to test your old-fashioned (pre-Newton) approach on computing integral f(x), x from 0 to 1, f(x) = 1 if x is a rational number, f(x) = 0 if x is an irrational number.
And I don't think high level math research nowadays revolve between formula but some abstract things.
Like they want to understand math more, I think.
I don't think computing is a part of mathematics.
Like every bit of what everyone called grade 1 math(addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) should be called computer science.
It consists of two part <start state of the world, transformation function of the world>
Transformation function of the world receive two variable: current state of the world and delta_time(amount of time passed after current_state) and it returns a distribution of state of the world.
What really matter is the transformation function because it's the thing that is helpful to humans right now.
We found that function (with some conditions, a lot of conditions). And also be able to model the world into a state in an extent.
And if we know that function (with some conditions, a lot of conditions and special cases), one can try to model the future state of the world or compute out the start state of the world by finding its inverse, given the current state?
It seems like humans are able to model very large thing pretty accurate(to human ofc, maybe some aliens can model the entire world and just knows there's some human on Earth despite not meeting them)
https://www.iflscience.com/largest-...-of-the-universe-created-using-supercomputers
That is what my definition of true truth: A 100% accurate pair of <start state, transformation function>.
There might be multiple transformation functions computed or approximated by different techniques that arrives at the same result tho.
And there might be multiple solutions of start state but we cannot find which one is the right one.
Monotheism model?
Start state = God + Nothing
Transformation_function(state, delta) = if (state.time() == 0) God.doSomething(delta) else Science(state, delta)
