if it did not exists, according to the model everything would be massless
This in a nutshell is all modern physics. Faith in our models, not in observation. "The model they pulled out of our asses says it should be there", and when it proved difficult to find, they lowered the bar for observations, allowing vague "data signals" to be enough to declare existence of something - "you want more solid proof? Triple our funding!" - ad infinitum. And here we are, with LHC being bumped up at tremendous expense to find even more elusive and vague signals identifiable only by the insane and delusional (or clever con-artist) theoretical physicists.
Take gravity. I can show you the equations that predict what happens with 99% repeatability. These hold true for everything from a dropped ball to the fairly short picture of the cosmos we've been watching for 400 years or so.
So when that same equation, taken to the next step, says there's a ridiculously small object that makes it work, but it's at the edge or beyond our ability to measure it, why would we think that it's some scam?
People pressing ahead like this with magnets gave us CT scanners. X-rays were esoteric and useless u til we accidentally saw a bone through flesh with them.
Fumbling around in the dark is the only way we learn.
At a subatomic level we cannot fully predict gravity with the classical mechanics equations used for the macro scale world. We cannot unify QM probabilities with gravity. There has been no successful unification of gravity with quantum mechanics.
That's a non-sequitor. I never stated or implied a unified model - gravity was used as an illustrative device so it could be accessible by those without a grounding in Quantum Mechanics to follow along with my point.
By extension, I also never stated or implied x-rays and/or CT scanners were manifestations of gravity.
This direction is valid. I am writing a new book on physics for AIs, which requires dissecting our physics beliefs in such a way that an AI can understand them. And what I am finding is that our models only go so far and then we have to say "I don't know why this thing happens, I can only make a mathematical model that's as valid as I can guess".
When you start to learn physics, you learn what I call the Level 1 model. It is simplified and it leaves out complications. It's high school. Later at Level 2 you return to the topics and this time learn better math models for describing things and now they handle second-order complications but even those are still somewhat simplified. It's college. We advance to Level 3 and 4 where the math gets hard and tough and sometimes crazy, but it isn't always guaranteed to be complete - perhaps simplified solely to let us be able to solve the equations at all (QM for example) - nor even a full explanation, and it is all extrapolation to things we can't touch or perceive directly - for example "string theory". People at the doctoral level which is Level 5 and maybe 6 deal with the very tough complications in models. The problem, the universe is at Level 6, 7, 8 or worse. In the end we can't model it well at all. And worse, the people exploring this are often super-autistic, high IQ and a little crazy and some with monster egos. Talk about your basic Dr Strange, we're there. You can see this leads to issues.
The problem we encounter is that some of our theory is so esoteric we can't test it, as there is no way to touch the things it covers. You will never be able to 'see' a string, or directly see the Higgs field.
The Michelson-Morley experiment for the aether was based on flawed assumptions and models, it never really disproved the idea of the aether.
I too see nightmare scenes in my sleep, mostly about giant donut-shaped quarks and hot dog shaped particles and trains and tunnels. Scares the hell of out of me and then I wake up clutching my particle accelerator.
For some context: only the gullible or those being paid by CERN really believe that physics is giving us truth. Electrons and protons (etc) are more or less believable because we can do engineering with them. For instance: we can turn on the lights. Most equations are considered phenomenological or emergent (which is basically the same thing).
The 'Higgs Field'. Well, whatever. We're awash in fiat currency, so we let some ne'er do wells pass their lives away.
But hey!!!! In 1960, we really (and this is actually, honestly true) thought that we were about to understand the mystery of the universe.
The Tao of Physics (a book by Fritzof Capra) was considered groundbreaking. It's actually still a great read.
This in a nutshell is all modern physics. Faith in our models, not in observation. "The model they pulled out of our asses says it should be there", and when it proved difficult to find, they lowered the bar for observations, allowing vague "data signals" to be enough to declare existence of something - "you want more solid proof? Triple our funding!" - ad infinitum. And here we are, with LHC being bumped up at tremendous expense to find even more elusive and vague signals identifiable only by the insane and delusional (or clever con-artist) theoretical physicists.
It's because the models predict accurately.
Take gravity. I can show you the equations that predict what happens with 99% repeatability. These hold true for everything from a dropped ball to the fairly short picture of the cosmos we've been watching for 400 years or so.
So when that same equation, taken to the next step, says there's a ridiculously small object that makes it work, but it's at the edge or beyond our ability to measure it, why would we think that it's some scam?
People pressing ahead like this with magnets gave us CT scanners. X-rays were esoteric and useless u til we accidentally saw a bone through flesh with them.
Fumbling around in the dark is the only way we learn.
At a subatomic level we cannot fully predict gravity with the classical mechanics equations used for the macro scale world. We cannot unify QM probabilities with gravity. There has been no successful unification of gravity with quantum mechanics.
That's a non-sequitor. I never stated or implied a unified model - gravity was used as an illustrative device so it could be accessible by those without a grounding in Quantum Mechanics to follow along with my point.
By extension, I also never stated or implied x-rays and/or CT scanners were manifestations of gravity.
Oh don't worry - I wasn't attacking you. Just adding information to the context.
This direction is valid. I am writing a new book on physics for AIs, which requires dissecting our physics beliefs in such a way that an AI can understand them. And what I am finding is that our models only go so far and then we have to say "I don't know why this thing happens, I can only make a mathematical model that's as valid as I can guess".
When you start to learn physics, you learn what I call the Level 1 model. It is simplified and it leaves out complications. It's high school. Later at Level 2 you return to the topics and this time learn better math models for describing things and now they handle second-order complications but even those are still somewhat simplified. It's college. We advance to Level 3 and 4 where the math gets hard and tough and sometimes crazy, but it isn't always guaranteed to be complete - perhaps simplified solely to let us be able to solve the equations at all (QM for example) - nor even a full explanation, and it is all extrapolation to things we can't touch or perceive directly - for example "string theory". People at the doctoral level which is Level 5 and maybe 6 deal with the very tough complications in models. The problem, the universe is at Level 6, 7, 8 or worse. In the end we can't model it well at all. And worse, the people exploring this are often super-autistic, high IQ and a little crazy and some with monster egos. Talk about your basic Dr Strange, we're there. You can see this leads to issues.
The problem we encounter is that some of our theory is so esoteric we can't test it, as there is no way to touch the things it covers. You will never be able to 'see' a string, or directly see the Higgs field.
The Michelson-Morley experiment for the aether was based on flawed assumptions and models, it never really disproved the idea of the aether.
I too see nightmare scenes in my sleep, mostly about giant donut-shaped quarks and hot dog shaped particles and trains and tunnels. Scares the hell of out of me and then I wake up clutching my particle accelerator.
And all that physics mostly assumes that there is an objective reality. Something I've never believed in through my own observations and studies.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a40460495/objective-reality-may-not-exist/
For some context: only the gullible or those being paid by CERN really believe that physics is giving us truth. Electrons and protons (etc) are more or less believable because we can do engineering with them. For instance: we can turn on the lights. Most equations are considered phenomenological or emergent (which is basically the same thing).
The 'Higgs Field'. Well, whatever. We're awash in fiat currency, so we let some ne'er do wells pass their lives away.
But hey!!!! In 1960, we really (and this is actually, honestly true) thought that we were about to understand the mystery of the universe.
The Tao of Physics (a book by Fritzof Capra) was considered groundbreaking. It's actually still a great read.