13 things that confuse the smartest people on Earth.

[simbrooks]

Lets just say that one day people will look back on us just as we look back on the folks in medieval times, as simpletons who had a warped understanding of those things going on around us - this is assuming we manage to make it to that day. Of course science and questioning is the way to get there, just putting things in perspective.

I guess i see/hear a lot of resources devoted to stuff out there and not as much to getting things right in our own backyard.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

That's because too many scientists seek an evolutionary (i.e. God is not necessary) explanation for the physical universe and all that is in it, rather than study it to perhaps understand its marvelous, supernatural, complexity.

Human reproduction is an example of a phenomena that is marvelous, complex, explainable in many respects by science, and (when you hold your infant) proclaims the existance of God. To investigate mysteries of the universe scientifically is not to deny the hand of a creator. I suspect the two are entirely compatible...

And that is a pretty cool list, Jonnythan!

 

[O2BBubbleFree]

I think a fundamental problem with physics, and science in general, is that we observe a behavior, formulate a ‘law’ to explain that behavior, then come to expect everything to obey that law. Maybe if we formed ‘descriptions’ of physics, we would be more apt to question them, and not be so surprised when they are wrong.

Just as a lousy example: the fastest thing we observe is light. We formulate a law that says nothing can exceed that speed. Then we observe violators of that law, but since it’s a law, the observation must be wrong, not the law.

#2 in your link states that “Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have traveled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.” BUT the heat is uniform. Nothing can exceed the speed of light, but the heat is uniform... Either the ‘speed of light’ law is wrong or the big bang theory is wrong, but we’re really not allowed to question either.

I read a report a while back about a group who fired a matched pair of photons in opposite directions, then influenced one with a magnetic field. The other responded in exactly the same way, but couldn’t have, because communication faster than the speed of light is impossible, because we have this law that says nothing is faster than the speed of light...

Addited: All I'm trying to say is that our laws of physics are really descriptions of observed behavior, or maybe predictors of likely behavior. The universe doesn't necessarily obey our laws.

 

[simbrooks]

Addited: All I'm trying to say is that our laws of physics are really descriptions of observed behavior, or maybe predictors of likely behavior. The universe doesn't necessarily obey our laws.

I completely agree, the scientists "back then" had limited material to work with, exposure to all possible events and tools to complete their calculations with - thus folks have tried to "update" those laws since due to modern methods, further discoveries that challenged the previous best empirical calculations and so on. While it would be nice just to have descriptions, i guess people seek after the definitive and propose it as law until proven otherwise, but the more ingrained/repeatedly taught something gets without update the more "unbreakable law" like this stuff becomes. So the theory becomes law, most of this stuff just started as theory in the first place, some of it is very hazy as this site shows.

 

[jonnythan]

As a note, we don't formulate laws to explain what we see.

We observe phenomena, make guesses as to why it happens that way, test the guesses, and if the guesses hold up we call them theories, not laws.

If we reliably observe a phenomena that contradicts our theories, we have no problems going back to the drawing board. It happens all the time... but it really puzzles us when we can't even begin to guess why something happens the way it happens

BTW your photon thing is an oddity of quantum mechanics.. and I promise there are a lot of people banging their heads on their desks every day to try and figure it out well enough.

 

[simbrooks]

As a note, we don't formulate laws to explain what we see.

We observe phenomena, make guesses as to why it happens that way, test the guesses, and if the guesses hold up we call them theories, not laws.

There are certain ideas/theories that are defined as laws beyond doubt, some of these are in question in that article. They are called "The Law of ....." in most cases. Think of those constants that might not be constant, i am sure there are others out there which are equally fallible under higher scrutiny, but of course the big laws/theories which are most contested are definately out there in the extreme reaches of the universe and will probably continue to puzzle us for decades to millenia in the future.

 

[Sideband]

I get a "Page can not be displayed" error. I can't view it. Bah!

Joe

 

[Mako Mark]

All I'm trying to say is that our laws of physics are really descriptions of observed behavior, or maybe predictors of likely behavior. The universe doesn't necessarily obey our laws.

The laws of physics are little more than probabilities, particularly quantum theory.

Present physical theory still cant even prove to us if a rock is a living thing or not.

.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

I think you generalize scientists too much.

I am well aware of scientists such as Newton, et. al. I am also well aware of the evolutionary bent of many scientists and their theories; which frequently are not referred to as theories, but statements of fact with no observable proof. Any attempt to debate the "theory" on its merits, is greeted with howls of protest and accusations of persons of faith being simple minded morons.

 

[jonnythan]

I am well aware of scientists such as Newton, et. al. I am also well aware of the evolutionary bent of many scientists and their theories; which frequently are not referred to as theories, but statements of fact with no observable proof. Any attempt to debate the "theory" on its merits, is greeted with howls of protest and accusations of persons of faith being simple minded morons.

I would contend that those who assert "statements of fact" with "no observable proof" are in fact not scientists.. by definition.