Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG
Bear with me here, it has been awhile since I've read up on this kind of stuff and my train of thought is a little jumbled today.
Quantum physics breaks down when you apply gravity. We can predict a lot of things very accurately with it otherwise.
Same with general relativity, it works very well at a local level, but on a macro scale it stop giving us correct predictions. We can predict orbits, mass, ect of planets and stars huge distances away. But when you take the orbit of a local region of a galaxy and look at it's mass, distance from galactic center, and orbital speed. The equation stops working unless you add an X factor to the equation, which right now is dark matter. And they are able to estimate that X factor and get reasonable predictions again, but we have no idea what it is or it's exact value. Same with the expansion rate of the universe. Without adding another X factor, dark energy, it doesn't accurately account for the rate.
We still trust these theories but we can't explain everything with them. That was all I meant.
|
I'm still having trouble connecting the dots with your last sentence and how that connects with what others have said, who you were responding to and if it was in agreement or disagreement. Sorry.
Trust isn't the word I would use. We use the theoretical models we have like we use technology that we have because these models have predictive powers and lead to applications. We wouldn't say we trust theories anymore than we would say we trust a hammer. I posted a video above where he shows the cosmic microwave background in progressive satellite images as technology improved. The accuracy of technology not only improved the image, but it allowed for a deeper analysis and comprehension of the universe, which is like seeing a fuzzy picture of a big dog, then telling it must be a mastiff bread, and then seeing it was a French Mastiff, and then telling the dog looked grumpy, and then seeing why because the dog is infested with fleas. Similarly, theoretical models can be superseded by better models that have better explanatory power, that are more accurate and that draw on greater relationships. Such might be the case for a future Grand Theory of Everything. If such a model existed, it wouldn't mean that other models don't work. It means the other models can only see a mastiff, but not the dog's expressions or skin condition. Just like a telescope makes a terrible microscope. Some models might be ideal for certain applications, but just because the microscope isn't good at visualizing planets, doesn't mean the microscope is bad at what we know it does well--seeing microbes.
Evolution is a Theory, for example, that does a great job at explaining a lot, but it doesn't explain the origins of the universe, the origins of life on this planet, abiogenesis (if that happened here or not), and many more aspects of our beginnings, so it could be superseded by a grander Theory (a multitool, if you will), but that wouldn't mean it was wrong or bad about what it does explain well (it might not be a multitool, but it might be a perfect hammer, to use the same analogy).