Can a spacecraft be gravity controlled someday?
- Thread starter steveda19
- Start date
Step 1: Control gravity.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit.
Yes, the Higgs boson and Higgs field are "actual physics" (accepted by the "in" crowd), but they are also completely unproven. LHC did not find Higgs, it found something else. The Higgs boson theoretically gives matter "mass"—thus making everything else ethereal shadows—but even that does not explain gravity. All it does is push the question back one step: "So how does mass cause gravity?" All we can do right now is quantify gravity, as Newton did. And there are numerous problems with the Einsteinian "warped space" idea. Would it have made any more sense if someone said, "simply warp space near the deck plates"? Perhaps, to an "actual" physicist.
That's nonsensical even before we get into the details. Explaining everything with an unappeasable standard like that is less likely than getting a visit from the real Santa Claus in the middle of north hemisphere summer.
All models of the universe – including real physics like the Standard Model and progressive death metal songs like Plasma Cosmology – are based on some fundamental concepts and rules that give rise to everything else, thereby explaining it. Being fundamental, they are not caused by anything else, in other words they are unexplainable. While most physicist prefer fundamental laws that are as simple as possible, being statistically more likely, not to mention prettier, there's no limit on how complex a fundamental law can be. You could have a universe with fundamental laws follow the rules of a computer program written in Malbolge, and if you lived there your only chance of ever explaining it would be philosophy.
In more direct terms, for a model to have any credibility, it has to be defined in strict mathematical terms, i.e. represent a mathematical theory. The mathematical theory will always include primitive notions (that are undefined) and axioms (that have no proof or explanation). I struggled accepting this quite a lot since fourth grade, but it's the only way to have anything. If you were making a universe from scratch, for you to include two things in your universe, at least one of them has to be unexplainable.
tl;dr - "Quantifying" fundamental interactions is all that you need to know to explain them.
All models of the universe – including real physics like the Standard Model and progressive death metal songs like Plasma Cosmology – are based on some fundamental concepts and rules that give rise to everything else, thereby explaining it. Being fundamental, they are not caused by anything else, in other words they are unexplainable. While most physicist prefer fundamental laws that are as simple as possible, being statistically more likely, not to mention prettier, there's no limit on how complex a fundamental law can be. You could have a universe with fundamental laws follow the rules of a computer program written in Malbolge, and if you lived there your only chance of ever explaining it would be philosophy.
In more direct terms, for a model to have any credibility, it has to be defined in strict mathematical terms, i.e. represent a mathematical theory. The mathematical theory will always include primitive notions (that are undefined) and axioms (that have no proof or explanation). I struggled accepting this quite a lot since fourth grade, but it's the only way to have anything. If you were making a universe from scratch, for you to include two things in your universe, at least one of them has to be unexplainable.
tl;dr - "Quantifying" fundamental interactions is all that you need to know to explain them.
Similar threads
