I found it really interesting that it took visual confirmation for us to believe in the existence of black holes despite having mathematical proof of it. Why isn't it the other way round? Could we instead prove visual phenomenon mathematically given that physics is a better model of our world and perhaps it is our eyes or cameras that are tricking us?
Considering that we can "see" more through mathematical constructs than we can visually, I find it interesting that the visual proof still supersedes the mathematical proof even when we know that math can model the world and show us things about the universe that we can't visually see. Why is it that we accept energy to exist even when we can't see it but need the reassurance of a photograph of a black hole when both black holes and energy are concepts of physics proved by math?
Perhaps a question I am trying to ask is how do you assess or compare different ways of seeing the world? Can you - and if so, how - say one is better or more accurate or more consistent than the other? I'd love to hear thoughts on this.
This was so interesting to read because I’ve always thought about this but never been able to put it into words. Not being able to fully conceptualize or visualize things such as energy always felt like a barrier to me learning physics, but it’s reassuring to know that others feel the same.
I've had such similar thoughts, so it's so exciting to read your perspective. The part about modeling things we cannot see through theoretical physics actually blows my mind - I was reading about a Berkeley professor's recent advancements in the black hole paradox and he found that you can actually extract information that can be telling of how the black hole came to be (aka using quantum mechanics to uncover information from its past). I can barely even begin to understand it and am probably not articulating it as well, but something that made me think.
This is such a good point that I should have included in the post - the idea that theoretical physics provides us a lens with which we can see both the past and the future, making it even more exciting and powerful. It's insane how we currently have the ability to figure out such things, but unfortunately the barrier to even begin to understand what the best physicists of our time are working on is extremely high due to the level of mathematics required. It's a long road, but hopefully one day you and I will both be able to overcome this barrier.
I found it really interesting that it took visual confirmation for us to believe in the existence of black holes despite having mathematical proof of it. Why isn't it the other way round? Could we instead prove visual phenomenon mathematically given that physics is a better model of our world and perhaps it is our eyes or cameras that are tricking us?
Considering that we can "see" more through mathematical constructs than we can visually, I find it interesting that the visual proof still supersedes the mathematical proof even when we know that math can model the world and show us things about the universe that we can't visually see. Why is it that we accept energy to exist even when we can't see it but need the reassurance of a photograph of a black hole when both black holes and energy are concepts of physics proved by math?
Perhaps a question I am trying to ask is how do you assess or compare different ways of seeing the world? Can you - and if so, how - say one is better or more accurate or more consistent than the other? I'd love to hear thoughts on this.
This was so interesting to read because I’ve always thought about this but never been able to put it into words. Not being able to fully conceptualize or visualize things such as energy always felt like a barrier to me learning physics, but it’s reassuring to know that others feel the same.
Incredibly clear and insightful.
I've had such similar thoughts, so it's so exciting to read your perspective. The part about modeling things we cannot see through theoretical physics actually blows my mind - I was reading about a Berkeley professor's recent advancements in the black hole paradox and he found that you can actually extract information that can be telling of how the black hole came to be (aka using quantum mechanics to uncover information from its past). I can barely even begin to understand it and am probably not articulating it as well, but something that made me think.
This is such a good point that I should have included in the post - the idea that theoretical physics provides us a lens with which we can see both the past and the future, making it even more exciting and powerful. It's insane how we currently have the ability to figure out such things, but unfortunately the barrier to even begin to understand what the best physicists of our time are working on is extremely high due to the level of mathematics required. It's a long road, but hopefully one day you and I will both be able to overcome this barrier.