Scientist have always dreamed of one big, one exclusive, all-inclusive, exact theory that would cover anything that there is needed to be know of universe. This is good but surely not sole example of conflicting wish, which would make the actual wisher dispensable, when wish would come true. Luckily for scientist, universe seem to offer the more surprises and paradoxes the more you research.
Or maybe things actually start to behave differently when they are put together and therefore there even cannot be one theory for the small and for the big. Also big problem of these wide angle theories is that every one smallest detail must be completely and fundamentally correct and interpreted perfectly. If there is a even small flaw in the philosophy in the smallest scale scenes, error is brought up and enlarged to macroscopic level too. And sadly there is not (well at least not yet) any way to study and measure anything that is much smaller than femtometre (10^-15 m).
Things smaller than scale mentioned before are products of rationing and philosophy. Thus they are in a way also matter of believe and might needed to be rethought once in a while new scientific information is discovered or new revolutionizing ideas are brought up. Once in a while brilliant scientist manage to engineer new test setups to research beyond familiar boundaries. Scientist who manage to contribute via thought experiments are usually already refined in public. This has happened many times in the history of science and is especially active now in CERN - organization.
But in the end what distinguishes belief systems from science? To my opinion it's that you recon that you could be wrong, and you keep your mind open and prepared for new ideas if they offer better, less paradoxical description of nature than those what we had before. The key point is to collaborate and to stand on the shoulders of a giants instead of trying to gain authority or personal benefit via knowledge.
Grand unification attempts
As tempting as it would be, one rigorous unification theory would have downsides too. Physics have fed the development of technology, industry, economy, political societies and even human interactions. Achieving suddenly the ultimate finish in physics would slow down scientific creativity in those other fields too. Those are fields that cannot necessarily reach "the ultimate pinnacle" and they benefit more from progress rather than from getting to the finish.
 |
| Modern societies are based on technology. |
Nowadays The Standard Model is often considered the most profound scientific theory covering pretty much everything. Well, almost everything except that one bad old news, gravitation. To my opinion standard model or any other model cannot cover every measurable property without being conflicting with itself. My argument is that if every measurement contain inaccuracy (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), modelling single particle shouldn't be done with same method that is used in modelling huge amount of particles. Increasing the amount of particles in the model would increase the amount of error in measurement drastically. Thus modelling huge group of particles would be measured more accurately when they are measured as a group instead of individuals. Nature sets us limits how she lets information be extracted from her.
Or maybe things actually start to behave differently when they are put together and therefore there even cannot be one theory for the small and for the big. Also big problem of these wide angle theories is that every one smallest detail must be completely and fundamentally correct and interpreted perfectly. If there is a even small flaw in the philosophy in the smallest scale scenes, error is brought up and enlarged to macroscopic level too. And sadly there is not (well at least not yet) any way to study and measure anything that is much smaller than femtometre (10^-15 m).
Things smaller than scale mentioned before are products of rationing and philosophy. Thus they are in a way also matter of believe and might needed to be rethought once in a while new scientific information is discovered or new revolutionizing ideas are brought up. Once in a while brilliant scientist manage to engineer new test setups to research beyond familiar boundaries. Scientist who manage to contribute via thought experiments are usually already refined in public. This has happened many times in the history of science and is especially active now in CERN - organization.
But in the end what distinguishes belief systems from science? To my opinion it's that you recon that you could be wrong, and you keep your mind open and prepared for new ideas if they offer better, less paradoxical description of nature than those what we had before. The key point is to collaborate and to stand on the shoulders of a giants instead of trying to gain authority or personal benefit via knowledge.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti