Introduction: Conceptual Remnants and the Challenge of Physical Objectivity
Physics has long been regarded as the science dedicated to uncovering the fundamental laws governing nature. However, in contemporary theoretical physics, there is an increasing reliance on mathematical models as the primary tool for understanding reality. This raises fundamental questions:
- Is physics still unknowingly entangled in issues arising from emergent effects?
- Could these emergent effects create a gap between physical reality and the virtual constructs generated through mathematical modeling?
Throughout the history of science, there have been instances where physicists, without fully grasping fundamental principles, formulated models that later turned out to be mere consequences of emergent effects rather than reflections of objective reality. For instance, in classical thermodynamics, macroscopic quantities such as temperature and pressure emerged as statistical descriptions of microscopic particle behavior rather than fundamental properties of nature.
The crucial question today is: Are we still facing similar emergent illusions in modern theoretical physics? Could it be that many of the sophisticated mathematical models we use are not pointing to an underlying physical reality but are merely the byproducts of our perception and modeling techniques?
Mathematical Models and Conceptual Remnants: Are We Chasing a Mirage?
Mathematics has always been an essential tool in physics, but over time, it has also shaped the way we think about physical reality. In many areas of theoretical physics, mathematical methods have advanced to a point where we may no longer be discovering physical truths but instead fine-tuning mathematical structures to fit our theoretical frameworks.
- Has theoretical physics become a vast computational engine, focusing on adjusting relationships between mathematical variables rather than seeking an independent physical reality?
- Could it be that many of the concepts emerging from our models are mere reflections of mathematical structures rather than objective entities in nature?
Examples of such concerns can be found in theories like string theory, where extra spatial dimensions and complex symmetry groups are introduced as necessary mathematical elements, despite lacking direct experimental verification. This raises the possibility that some of these theoretical constructs exist only because they are mathematically required to make the model internally consistent, rather than because they correspond to something physically real.
Fundamental Critique: Should We Even Be Searching for Physical Objectivity?
One of the most profound implications of this discussion is that the very question of whether physics describes "physical reality" might be fundamentally misguided.
Werner Heisenberg once argued that physics will never lead us to an understanding of an objective physical reality. Instead, what we develop are models that describe relationships between observable phenomena—without necessarily revealing the true nature of reality itself.
- Perhaps physics should not aim to discover a reality independent of our models since every model is ultimately a mathematical structure shaped by human perception.
- If the goal of physics is not to describe "absolute truth" but rather to create predictive models, should we then accept that we will never fully grasp "what actually exists"?
Finally: Between Computational Accuracy and Physical Reality
The final question in this discussion is: Are we still trapped in emergent effects that arise purely from our mathematical approaches rather than reflecting an objective physical reality?
- Should physicists strive to distinguish between mathematical models and physical objectivity, or is such a distinction inherently meaningless?
- Is the search for an independent physical reality a conceptual mistake, as Heisenberg and others have suggested?
Ultimately, this discussion seeks to examine whether physics is merely a computational framework for describing phenomena, or if we are still subconsciously searching for a physical reality that might forever remain out of reach.
Seyed Mohammad Mousavi
As the person to provide a reply to this very good observation & question first, let me start out with universal truths.
Blue is a universal truth -- as long as we are all using the same color book.
When aliens arrive on planet Earth, and we ask them to declare the color of the clear sky in the daytime, then they will all pick blue from the color book we present them.
Yet the universe itself is not just blue.
So, the specific truth we found cannot declare the truth about the larger reality.
--
Gödel pronounced this some 100 years ago already. How axioms are axioms only in their specific formal systems. At the overall level, they do not hold their value to the same level as inside their formal systems.
This has extremely important consequences for how we work in Physics.
As long as we work within our own specialisms, we are good.
Yet when we step out to the overall level of reality in its totality, the universe, then the specific truths cannot be used -- other than their contributing to the whole.
The spot to go stand at that overall level, however, is available.
- Yet we need to be careful, hesitant, to say too much. Generalizations are better than specific details.
--
Newton worked with the natural reality as he saw it. He made major strides and we are still leaning very much on all his good work (and others in his days and the following days).
Yet Einstein pulled us away from the natural reality, and many physicists do recognize how there are then two methodologies to follow: the Newtonian and the Einsteinian methodology. Most folks follow Einstein, but jump to Newtonian thinking when this is easiest to explain things.
Yet a problem got then incorporated, not easily recognized. You provided therefore an excellent introduction to go with the question.
--
This is what happened, and it can be seen in the art world as well.
Around the turn of the 20th century physicists and artists started to work (more) at an abstract level. Cubism, Picasso, Dali, I cannot name them all, started to make art for art's sake.
Same in Physics. Instead of standing on top of the known facts and observations, physicists started to stand on theories.
And that is therefore not a natural representation of reality. Something will be amiss, correct as things may appear to be.
--
The image I have used in the past contrasts religious thinking with scientific thinking and shows an important distinction.
- The house of religion is perfect on the outside. Yet when asked about the foundation of the house, conflicts will arise and when asking the wrong crowd one may not even life to regret asking the question. It is top-down.
- The house of science is wonderful as well, but the roof line shows imperfection. When asking about the foundation, though, physicists gladly show you how everything is put in place. It is bottom-up.
Since Newton, many have tried to put the best fitting roof on the house of science to overcome the imperfections. No one succeeded because a roof built on the ground next to the house cannot be lifted off the ground. As soon as the construct is lifted, physicists come running to turn the crane's engine off because no scientific framework can leave the ground -- not even when the roof would have been a perfect fit.
In comes Einstein, and instead of constructing a roof on the ground next to the building, he talks about how a certain roof would be a perfect fit. He theorizes about the perfect roof.
Almost everyone ends up agreeing with Einstein that his roof is indeed a perfect fit.
So far so good because it is all a theory.
Then, folks started building on Einstein's perfect roof.
- His theories become the foundation of modern science.
And that is a faux pas.
Never, ever can a theory become the foundation of science.
--
Here is the mathematical angle:
1 + 1 = 2, but... it does not mean anything.
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples is the example to show how mathematics is correct when applied to a real scenario.
But...
1 apple + 1 orange = 2 pieces of fruit
This shows us that the human mind must be kept under control, declaring exactly what it is that it is doing.
Yes, 1 piece of fruit + 1 piece of fruit = 2 pieces of fruit, yet we stepped away from the specific truths of apples and oranges.
The resulting answer of 2 pieces of fruit is correct, but 1 apple + 1 orange cannot be added together. The human brain turns the equation around to find the truth.
The human brain is here to help us see the truth, but we can end up seeing a falsehood instead.
When we make a theory the foundation, then we turned the scientific house upside down and embrace a religious house instead.
Looking at the foundation, Einstein did not know about the Big Bang event. Einstein missed out on the most important behavior of matter moving through space because it is based on an extinct force. And Einstein only worked with active forces.
Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Materials Engineering
- Powders