I don't get it.To me it's playing with the equations till they match the expected result and then acting astonished when they finally do.
>>16378243Have you taken your meds yet today?
>>16378189>To me it's playing with the equations till they match the expected result and then acting astonished when they finally do.Introducing: All of modern Theoretical Physics since the inception of Theoretical Physics
Richard Feynman once said he didnt care about unification. What does it matter if physics gets unified or not? It suffices to have theories to explain what is actually observed in experiments.Besides, unification is a dumb placeholder name for quantum gravity. A theory of quantized gravity.
When did le heckin math replace understanding and intuition
>>16378256>if you describe your situation in terms of an optimization problem then you can (probably) solve itWell, no shit.To me it seems like an overgeneralization.It lacks the descriptive power of proper laws of nature discovered through empirical means.
>>16378266when physics began talking about things that we have no intuitive experience with duh
>>16378189>To me it's playing with the equations till they match the expected result and then acting astonished when they finally do.I will take that you are referring to the principle of least action. How exactly are you playing and cooking up equations when literally all your laws are derived from a single physical principle? So in your mind the "expected result" is that we know of the principle which the world works and we apply it? >>16378256>>16378268>since the inception of Theoretical Physics>It lacks the descriptive power of proper laws of nature discovered through empirical means.t.brainlets
>>16378263>It suffices to have theories to explain what is actually observed in experiments.How exactly do you think these experiments were conceived? Man people here are stupid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXlNm5iUrCA
>>16380877Except you have to define your action properly to make it work out and it's often not trivial.Also most often it's actually not the least action but stationary action and sometimes extreme action depending on circumstances.It seems to me like those are principles of fit all.
>>16380881>How exactly do you think these experiments were conceived?What is that even supposed to mean? Who gives a fuck if theories get unified or not. If you have theories that work that is enough, who made this meme that all theories have to be united in some single universal theory?
>>16382092>What is that even supposed to mean?It means that if all people were brainlets like you, we wouldn't have the means to propose said experiments. "Muh theory needs to explain only what I can see" is at least unscientific and retarded, many of the most important ideas came when people started taking their theories seriously, caregfully asking bold questions, which let them to make predictions, which then were measured as accurately as anything we have measured ever in our history. >Who gives a fuck if theories get unified or notFirst of all I did not mentioned anything about this schizo, but since you insist, we know that at least three of the forces do unify so its only a natural question to ask. But I guess there are no normie quotes about this for you to be informed enough
>>16382075> you have to define your action properly to make it work out and it's often not trivial.I dont really understand what you mean here. Of course you define the action, but thats where all the interesting physics is. Making symmetry arguments that limit the possible forms of the Lagrangian is the most physically sensible thing to do. It is one thing to question why does the world work the way it does, which is a fair question, but in no way do we cook up appropriate actions that yield us what we want. Anybody that believes this simply does not understand what he is talking about or has not taken any courses in his life about these things.>not the least action but stationary actionThe "principal of least action" is just a (bad) old name. Of course you can have solitons and other things that extremize the action, and its totally fine.>It seems to me like those are principles of fit all.I really do not understand your skepticism. When your theory makes predictions which are validated without prior knowledge of the results, how exactly do we "fit" our maths into what we measure? Take the quarks and mesons for example. By very simple group theoretic arguments you can predict the whole zoo of particles that have been detected, which was a crystal clear prediction as an output of our theory.
>>16378189yes, you dont get it.
>functional differential = 0>calculus of variations>founded 400 years ago>the closest we have to a theory of everythingwtf is your problem?
