And Physicists think their field is MORE RIGOROUS than others??

[Anonymous No.12715051]

>particles act different when we don't look at them
>time is a real thing and not just our subjective mental perception of movement
>when we zoom in to a small enough scale, Euclidean volume doesn't work any longer
>there are more than three dimensions even though we've never observed any matter that behaves in a way indicating such higher dimensions exist.
>just one more "elementary" particle and our models will finally become coherent!
>These two particles are actually one particle in two places!

[Anonymous No.12715055]

>>12715051
Almost forgot the best one:
>muh multiverse!

[Anonymous No.12715145]

>>12715051
Mathematics has abandoned observations in favor of rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.12715174]

>>12715145
beauty of math leads physics astray

[Anonymous No.12715187]

>math is the language of the universe

[Anonymous No.12715204]

let me give an analogy to OP:
>biologists think their field is rigorous
>
>whales and dolphins have advanced languages so we can train them to talk and give them seats in the United Nations!
>bumblebee flight transcends aerodynamics!
>migratory birds detect earth’s magnetic field through nano structures in the brain!
>life started on mars and earth life is from panspermia!
>the biology of extraterrestrial alien life is carbon based!
>the loch ness monster is an icthyosaur!
>jesus was biologically female since he had no Y chromosome!!

if you are allowed to straw man then you can make any scientific field sound retarded

[Anonymous No.12715222]

>>12715051
The standard model is absurdly accurate.

[Anonymous No.12715248]

>>12715051
Physicists BTFO-ed TOP KEK

[Anonymous No.12715249]

>>12715051
>particles act different when we don't look at them
no, particles act different when you whack them with a giant stick, which is what we do when we try to "observe" them.

[Anonymous No.12715266]

>>12715204
With the exception that your greentext claims are forced and ridiculous, noone claims that.
With the exception that physicists are really like OP described meanwhile they sucks big time XDDDDDDDD Theoretical physics are a meme.

[Anonymous No.12715280]

>>12715266
>With the exception that physicists are really like OP described
no, you’re wrong. pick any one topic and we can address whether that is considered a “rigorous” result of physics

[Anonymous No.12715323]

>>12715280
Modern physics is full of contradiction and whenever they got stuck they get around that problem with the most absurd way it's possible. True meme field

[Anonymous No.12715329]

>>12715266
>>12715323
t. brainlet biologist sage

[Anonymous No.12715331]

>>12715051
>time is a real thing and not just our subjective mental perception of movement
Please define movement

[Anonymous No.12715345]

>>12715331

[Anonymous No.12715347]

>>12715331
Red herring. All definitions of words humans use are circular. This is because no word had a single concrete meaning, but only contextual meaning within our lexicon. We identify meaning of words via clusters. Sad, depressed, melancholy, morose, macabre, etc. One may identify minute differences between them, but such differences are actually rather subjective, hence why lexicographers will tend to define words via synonyms.

So when you ask a question about defining movement, it's really a red herring and you're basically just trolling via sealioning. It doesn't have an objective answer and you know you can always question further. If I define movement as a change in space, you can ask me to define what change is, or what space is. If I tell you change means a fundamental alteration in the qualia of object X, such that the total essence of X is no longer X, you'd just ask me to define what qualia means.

[Anonymous No.12715354]

>>12715145
Mathematics was never about observations!

[Anonymous No.12715355]

>>12715249
Vaguely remember a 2011 experiment that claims to have eliminated interference like that. Can't remember it, though.

[Anonymous No.12715358]

>>12715323
so you have no comeback? that’s what i thought. keep strawmanning bro it’ll get you far in life

[Anonymous No.12715370]

>>12715358
There is a core truth in what OP said in a sarcasstic matter btw am not strawmanning.
It is extremely hard to find one damn one clear book about quantum physic. In almost every book, physicists try to present very fundamental Hilbert spaces definitions and theorems (dude weed if [A,B] = 0 then AB = BA lmao ! ), maybe to convince themselves they are not doing absolute bullshits, but they do not define properly their own operators. The most annoying thing is their absolute shit tier notations.
There are ten operators in quantum physics, ONLY TEN ! And finding a book which expose them clearly is extremely rare.

It's unbeliveable to see how unclear are the fundamental concepts of Hilbert spaces, projections, convex functions for quantum physicists, they really do not get what they are doing.
Those who work in mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, fluid mechanics, statistic physics and RG understand what they are doing, but not quantum physicists.

It's really like they are enjoying their blurred concepts, without any kind of clear definitions.


Quantum physic is not hard. Understand it is basically understand any little class about basic algebra/analysis in Hilbert spaces. But quantum physicists are so ignorant they try to bullshit as much as they can their field so it could look like very complicated.

[Anonymous No.12715373]

>>12715204
Yeah, except the "fake" quotes I used are things physicists will actually claim. The observer effect is a real thing in physics, a breakdown of matter having volume is a real thing in physics, higher dimensions are a thing (many, but not all) physicists claim exist, quantum entanglement is something physicists actually claim exist, and so is dark matter and multiverses.

Yet to anyone whose an outside observer, these are on par with epicycles in terms of being myopic theory.

[Anonymous No.12715385]

>>12715370
you are retarded anon. hate to break it to you. if you want a clear book try Shankar. if you find it confusing then please clarify what you find confusing and we can discuss

[Anonymous No.12715389]

>>12715385
>please clarify what you find confusing
Mainly the part that it's so obviously fake

[Anonymous No.12715397]

>>12715051
>shine light at particle
>particle moves
physicist declares a breakthrough and goes ooga booga
>there is movement outside of our perception
physicist discovers time and goes ooga booga
>zoom in at a level that his measuring tool can't accurately read
physicist declares volume is not as expected and goes ooga booga
>our 3D eyes can't see 4D
physicist asks, "why?" and goes ooga booga
>advancements in technology yield "new" particles
physicist says "there won't be any more after this one" and goes ooga booga
>physicist discovers quantum entanglement
normie goes ooga booga

[Anonymous No.12715402]

>>12715373
>Yeah, except the "fake" quotes I used are things physicists will actually claim. The observer effect is a real thing in physics,
yes but as anon explained here >>12715249
you strawmanned the actual idea
>a breakdown of matter having volume is a real thing in physics,
i don’t know what you are talking about. initially i thought you were talking about the wheeler spacetime foam idea but now it seems like you have another idea in mind. what exactly are you talking about?
>higher dimensions are a thing (many, but not all) physicists claim exist,
no, extra dimensions are a feature of certain speculative theories that are not accepted—the accepted theory is the “Standard Model” of particle physics and the “Standard Model” of cosmology which are both based on 4 dimensions.
>quantum entanglement is something physicists actually claim exist,
well, this is actually rigorous. Alain Aspect and others proved it experimentally decades ago beyond a shadow of a doubt
>and so is dark matter
dark matter has a lot of observational evidence, the bullet cluster and the rotation curve of galaxies e.g. however, the details are unknown and nobody claims to know the exact properties of what makes dark matter
> and multiverses.
again, this is a feature only of speculative ideas. anybody who mentions this in a physics context needs to mention that the idea is nested in some assumptions about what might be true. so it’s like saying “if we assume the moon is made of cheese, then mice MUST live on mars.” in this case you are omitting the “if” part of the statement and skipping to the “then” part which is dishonest strawmanning