6 ms·
It basically invalidates modern science in the same way Einstein invalidated Newtonian physics. It would mean we have pretty good approximation on how things wo
by jasekt 2y ago
It basically invalidates modern science in the same way Einstein invalidated Newtonian physics. It would mean we have pretty good approximation on how things work, but we are fundamentally wrong. So it would be an exciting time to be a physicist, as it would force us to rethink how things really are from atoms, to stars and the beginning of the universe.
- shiroiushi 2y agoDoesn't the fact that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don't make correct predictions at all scales already show we're fundamentally wrong?
- cthalupa 2y agoMaybe. Maybe not. There might not be a Universal Theory of Everything. Everyone hopes there's something and most scientists do believe that something is out there, but the idea that there might be reasons we can't unify them or that there are physical limits that prevent us from gathering the information we need to fully suss things out isn't exactly fringe science.
- left-struck 2y agoIt does not invalidate science. The scientific method is the process by which we build gradually towards a clearer picture of the ground truth if there is one. Even if by “science” you just meant our current understanding of the universe as opposed to the method we gain that understanding, then this would not invalidate that, it only invalidates a small part. Yes, we are fundamentally wrong, I would hope that all physicists recognise that we don’t have a perfect explanation for how things work yet, this would be just another step in that process, but an exciting one indeed.
- jasekt 2y agoThanks for point it out. I meant physics, not science :)