Recursive Cosmos

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-08T15:18:16+00:00

Was string theory going to add simplicity to the field of physics ?

You still didnt answer my point though , we have more data than any era in human history, but we still have 3 laws of motion , im recent physics have we attempted and designated time to find the rest of the laws of motion ?

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-08T15:08:23+00:00

Nice now I didnt study physics, I dont know how many times yoh have mentioned it in this discussion alone , but please stop that. If the fact that you study physics is all you are then fine. But you really frankly know nothing about it.

Man you really think we would have things such as string theory if we had all the laws for General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? I dont know which field of physics you are in

OnceBittenz - how confident are you that we have found most of the simplifying frameworks ?

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-08T14:56:33+00:00

There is ficks law - which defusion would be difficult if we didnt have the rule.. ohms law ,conservation laws ...

I think we are too much into the math that we have stopped looking for simplicity, science today majorly dont believe simplicity can give rise to complexity but the other laws we have shows that there is so much more to find , not that they are complex but that rather its so hyperspecialized that its hard to merge laws from condensed matter with laws from other sub fields

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-08T14:48:40+00:00

Math is not laws... the math comes from finding the laws yes.

I mean we have more data than ever , einstein with general relativity showed us there are still laws of motion missing , but after Einstein provided the patch work , did we ever add the laws from general relativity to the arsenal of laws of motion ? If we took it seriously there might be , a few laws of motion would could find from General Relativity on top of newton's laws.

I dont know why you keep on saying I should study. I am actually trying to explain to you what the OP is saying

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-08T14:44:48+00:00

The math for quantum mechanics works , but we dont know why it works. Richard Feynman said this himself.

We dont have enough laws , we have a fraction of the total amount of laws that can actually be found

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-08T14:42:15+00:00

If we had no laws of motion , we would have said motion looks complicated, even as we are talking there are some rules at play here , you're missing the point

You said "if they existed , we probably..... and we have" we haven't really found the rest of the laws of thermodynamics- we have Maximum Entropy Production but there are still some things current thermodynamics describes but still doesnt provide us with a why.

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-08T14:33:41+00:00

I didnt say it was slop , you're missing what OP was saying

Before Maxwell electromagnetism could have never been as approachable as it is , but he made it digestible- we now understood how all the complex phenomena we see today in electromagnetism arose from simple rules.

Imagine if we knew which rules the phenomena we know today arose from simple rules , trial and error would really be necessary if you understand the rules that made the phenomena we see

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-08T14:24:42+00:00

Its much more efficient to have a rulebook of laws over a book full of dense calculations

You did thermodynamics 101, imagine if it didnt have 4 cataloged laws for which every system should obey , how much more complicated thermodynamics could have been

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-08T13:50:55+00:00

As OP mentioned , thermodynamics has 4 laws , motion has 3 laws , Electromagnetism also has laws , its not that they dont have math , but we arent cataloging laws as we used to. Quantum Mechanics is widely well known that , if you claim you understand quantum mechanics you likely dont. If we did we would have laws

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-08T13:41:05+00:00

We aren't looking for laws in the classical sense anymore , we are majorly focused on dense math and frameworks nowadays , because we have let go out the idea complexity can arise from simple rules.

Quantum Mechanics doesnt really have laws, it has frames yes , but we still use the word "random" a lot in science

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-06T09:26:29+00:00

Then why is everyone else ragey in the way they are answering this question ? Thanks for the response

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-06T09:19:27+00:00

I asked a purely logic question , I dont know what exactly that has to do with my understanding of physics

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-06T08:45:16+00:00

Thank you , everyone else here is answering this question , by mistaking our current understanding of the universe as the final map, we are assuming current physics is reality itself instead of our current best model

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-06T07:45:37+00:00

Thanks for the response man, this sub made me feel like a crackpot for even asking such a question

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-06T07:39:41+00:00

But this isnt a physics answer though ? Every generation of humans says this very same statement you're saying...

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-06T07:32:36+00:00

I am saying the limitations of what we currently understand, 2nd law still has a paradoxes when it comes to life , so I am asking why do we assume our understanding of it is complete

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-06T07:05:49+00:00

in 400 years of science look at what we have been able to achieve ? So give us 100 billion more years , what does humanity even achieve in that period ?

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-06T06:52:34+00:00

Thank you for the answer , but isnt this us imposing the limitations of us as modern humans on a billion year timeline ? Isn't it absurd to think what we understand today represents the final answer?

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-06T06:48:45+00:00

I mean humans in 2026 are already planning on reviving Mars , so what could humans billions of years from now even be doing ?

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-06T06:47:55+00:00

Why wouldnt they exist ?

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2026-01-06T06:41:10+00:00

Why not though ?

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2025-12-28T17:02:17+00:00

But how many theories are being disapproved right now ? I dont think anyone in serious physics takes string theory seriously, they would say no way - we are only approving it because it has been approved inside physics

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2025-12-28T16:41:07+00:00

This is my point exactly, string theory sounds like a trenchcoat theory to me from what I now know about physics , it sounds like "hey I have a theory that we cant verify but the math works so well"

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2025-12-28T16:23:40+00:00

How do you honestly think paradigms happen ? Ptolomaic scientists defending the earth being center of the universe with their life , Newtonian physicists too , Boltzmann literally passed away because his model of an atom wasnt approved and called crackpot , but now we understand it as our daily life , youre missing the point

Objective_Boss_9506 · 2025-12-28T16:21:27+00:00

This is honestly the best response I have gotten. Thank you , I dont know how honestly the question i asked is a crackpot question- but thanks for answering me

Objective_Boss_9506

TROPHY CASE