somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4b0cf846@news.povray.org...

> > In other words, normally a new
> > unknown phenomenon is discovered, studied, measured and then theories are
> > developed to explain how it works and perhaps why.

> This is a very neat and tidy, but ultimately wrong synopsis of how science,
> or at least physics, has been working for over the last century, during
> which time theories have often ventured far beyond what needs to be
> explained. Of course they have simultaneously been falling far short of
> explaining what needs to be explained, so it's a really complex picture.

  Well, *usually* science goes through the cycle:

1) We observe some phenomenon,
2) We study and measure the phenomenon.
3) We formulate hypotheses, and if these hypotheses can make enough accurate
   predictions which match new observations, they are made into theories.
4) If new observations and measurements contradict the existing theories,
   they are revised, or entirely new hypotheses are formulated, so we go
   back to step 1.

  In this particular case, however, I have the feeling that an observed
phenomenon (gravity) is tried to forcefully be fit into an existing theory
(quantum mechanics) even though it's contradicting it. In other words,
the theory is that "everything must be quantized", and they are observing
that "gravity doesn't seem to be quantized", and rather than revising the
theory they are trying to forcefully make gravity quantized to fit the
theory.

  Somehow I get the feeling that it's a bit the same as saying "the Newtonian
gravity laws are the truth" and then trying really hard to make the mechanics
of Mercury fit into the Newtonian laws of gravity, rather than accepting that
it doesn't fit, and devising a new theory which does fit observed phenomena.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message