The trouble with physics

I just finished reading Lee Smolin's book "The trouble with physics". Enjoyable read, and he makes some very good points about the current state of physics and "whats wrong with it". As a layman, I tend to agree with most of what he writes.


There is, however, one thing about physics, and science in general that bugs me. The tendency to boldly declare that "this is how nature works!"


Take a concrete example. A tennisball dropped from a height is said to "Obey Newtons Laws". Let's engage in a "gedankenexperiment":

1. Drop a tennisball from a given heigh. In a vacuum, if you so wish. Very accurately track the downwards accelleration.
2. Observe that this accelleration, within experimental error, is in accordance with Newtons Laws.
3. Place said tennisball on a tabletop, with a pen and a standard Calculus-test.
4. Wait.
5. Observe that the tennisball is really bad at Calculus.
6. Conclude that the tennisball can NOT "obey Newtons laws" at all, it cant tell an integral from a racket! The tennisball does as it damn well pleases, and Newtons Laws is a model that describes what the tennisball pleases. A very good model, perhaps, but a model nonetheless.

If we accept that whatever mathematical constructs we have of the real world are, in fact, MODELS of the real world I think we'd be a lot more productive in science in general, and perhaps physics in particular. If we accepts our knowledge as models, rather than "laws of nature", it would probably be easier to accept refinement of these models. Refinements that would better explain our observations.


The Oxford English Dictionary defines scientific method as "consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."


Now would be a good time to observe that all previous models of the physical universe has been proven false. And I suppose also formulate a hypothesis that our current knowledge will be surpassed. Assuming that we are now at the peak of human knowledge, and we now know how nature works, to me seems preposterous. At best, we can hope that our current theories and models are good ones that will last a while, before being replaced by something better and more accurate. I find it ever so slightly ironic, when scientists (or perhaps the press is more to blame for my impression of what the scientists proclaim) says that we now know "how nature really works". It means they can all go home. Job done. Turn of the lights and lock the door, we've got it.


It also strikes me that "old knowledge dies hard". Case in point: String theory. For some reason it is easier to believe that we live in a multidimensional universe with "invisible rolled up dimensions", than to believe that general relativity is incorrect/incomplete. I think Occam would have something to say about that..


I think it is interesting to ponder this unwillingness to tear down old truths. I am not arguing that we should welcome every claim to cold fusion at face value, but I do believe that theres something to be said for taking a second look at long established truths every now and then. Technology improves, our ability to measure and quantify improves, experimental error continues to shrink. Perhaps some of those old truths are no longer quite as true? Or at least, not complete?


Which brings me on to another pet peeve. "It's so beautiful it must be true!" Why? Beatiful, yes, but so what? The tennisball, at least, has proven itself useless at calculus, so I don't imagine it cares much for the beauty of the laws it is supposed to obey. I find it strange this belief that the world must operate according to

1. mathematical principles (perhaps not so strange on its own, but still),
2. these mathematical principles must be describable within our current framework of mathematics, and
3. the principles must be beautiful.