There are lots of disciplines that fall under the heading of science. But what is science? How is it defined? And are all the current "scientific fields" really qualified to be called such?
I was reading an article about...well, to be completely honest, I am not really sure. The general topic was physics. It was a little over my head. Something to do with string theory and the gap between relativity and quantum physics...and lastly theoretical physics.
I think it's ironic that the the only one of the above mentioned that made any sense to me was the least "scientific" in my opinion. That was my first inkling that it might be misplaced.
Theoretical physics. It's cool, it's mind bending, it uses neat phrases like "space-time" and "alternate universes and parallel dimensions." It reminds me of Star Trek, and in general I love it. But at the same time I have noted that a lot of the ideas it puts forth to explain/understand the universe, seem extremely abstract, and from my limited understanding are non-testable. And if the theories are not subject to the scrutinies of the scientific method, then are they really theories at all? Should they exist under the umbrella of science?
To be clear, I am not talking about all branches of physics. I am only talking about the ultra abstract theoretical part. If, for example, you argue that there may be million of parallel universes, but we will only ever exist in our own, what is the value of speculating about it? What is scientific about it? Some scientists believe that for every universe that forms, an original brand of physics is created to accompany it. Ok, that sounds cool, but unless we expect to find ourselves somehow surviving the end of our present universe, and subsequently making it into the next, I don't see how that has anything to do with science. It's just as absurd to speculate about whether or not we will make it into heaven.
I don't think it is valueless, I just don't think it falls under the realm of true testable science. It seems too philosophical to me. I think it should be renamed philosophical physics. But maybe I'm wrong...Or maybe I am wrong in this universe, but right in another one! It's hard to say.
I think that most of what the common folk hear of theoretical physics sounds really far out there, but at it's core is testable, albeit not in the way you might think. For instance, a String Theorist may talk about 12 dimensional space or whatever, and I'm like, "WTF?", but the experiments they are running to test these theories are are in particle accelerators and deal with really complex mathematical models. Chances are that these parallel universes have some sort of mathematical tie to some kind of particle physics research, and when the physicist waxes poetic, he is usually standing on that sort of base. Perhaps not always though ...
ReplyDeleteBTW, you should link to the article you were reading, I'd be interested in checking it out ...
Uggg...it was in Discover magazine (a hard copy)...I will find the issue when I get home,and maybe see if I can get you the title.
ReplyDeleteAlso, even if it somehow ties to particle physics or whatever, is there really enough...useful knowledge gained by solving those kinds of questions? I.e. if we knew there were millions of other universes, would that impact us in any way other than perhaps philosophically?
ReplyDelete