Non-Fundamental Forces

[Umbran]

The standard model of physics: it is in Flux, with major unanswered questions. I'm not going to presume to tell you what they are, bit my understanding is that reconciling quantum physics with general relativity is...fraught?

So, I think I see where you are with this, but it contains some misunderstandings.

The Standard Model was originally crafted to model three out of the four fundamental forces. It is excellent at doing that. It delivers highly accurate predictions of the interactions of those forces.

But, every model has limits.

Similar to how flaws in older paradigms eventually led to new leaps as people banged their heads against proud nails, like why gold did not come from lead as theoretical physics predicted, no matter how hard they tried.

So, you keep using the word "paradigm", and I'm not sure that applies here. The path of science so far hasn't been one one of complete paradigm shifts, but a path of additive understanding. Failure to cover everything doesn't indicate a need for a paradigm shift - it indicates a need for an extension.

You see, the Standard Model is accurate. Crazily so. Any model that comes along to work gravity into the mix will effectively have to reduce to the Standard Model within the energy ranges in which the Standard Model works. The one will have to just sort of meld into the other seamlessly. Just as Einsteinian relativity reduces down to Newtonian mechanics at low speeds.

If there is anything like a new paradigm that come up, it might be that there is no way to unify quantum mechanics and relativity.

 

[The Sigil]

I would generally say the “fundamental forces” are those for which we have to assume “this is a basic rule of how things interact” instead of “this is a rule that emerges from application of other rules.”

As mentioned above, the electromagnetic and gravitational forces are generally responsible for interactions and forces we observe on the macro scale.

Exactly HOW and more importantly WHY the forces act in the way they do is also an interesting thing and physics is generally trying to unify disparate fields of “fundamental” knowledge under a single assumption (for example, coming up with the principle of Least Action can to some degree explain why gravity, optics, and Newtonian Mechanics all work, so I would call the principle of Least Action more “fundamental” than, say F=ma, since F=ma can be derived from the principle of Least Action - and so can the equations of refraction in optics - similarly to the way Relativity can be derived out of Maxwell’s Equations).

 

[Bohandas]

Because I am a physicist, I must.

The "four fundamental forces" are gravity, electromagnetism, the strong interaction (aka "the strong nuclear force") , and the weak interaction (aka "the weak nuclear force").

"Decay" is not a fundamental force.

I'm pretty sure they meant the weak nuclear force

 

[Umbran]

I'm pretty sure they meant the weak nuclear force

Yes, not only did I know that at the time, they said as much afterwards. But, thanks anyway, I guess?

 

[Bohandas]

like why gold did not come from lead

You can totally turn lead into gold, it just requires a giant particle accelerator and a stupidly large amount of energy

 

[Parmandur]

You can totally turn lead into gold, it just requires a giant particle accelerator and a stupidly large amount of energy

Right, but that isn't distilling the pure element of earth...and according to the paradigm of the Medieval West Eurasian world, that should have worked relatively easily.

 

[Umbran]

Right, but that isn't distilling the pure element of earth...and according to the paradigm of the Medieval West Eurasian world, that should have worked relatively easily.

So, first, let us note that this was Alchemy, not "theoretical physics". And at the core, that gives us the difference between a paradigm shift, and an extended model.

Alchemy has more kinship with Astrology than with theoretical physics or modern chemistry. Specifically, Alchemy was a pseudoscience - a narrative about how the universe works that was not subject to rigorous testing, understanding of statistics, or other elements of the scientific method.

So, yes, when your model of the universe is made up, but not really tested, when it finally fails (in Alchemy's case, with the discovery of the chemical elements that did not follow Alchemical principles), it leads to a "paradigm shift" - the whole story falls over at once.

When your model of the universe is based on rigorous testing, you maintain contact with reality, and have been shifting you paradigm in small ways with every step, and have no massive failure point that leads you to rethink everything.

 

[Parmandur]

So, first, let us note that this was Alchemy, not "theoretical physics". And at the core, that gives us the difference between a paradigm shift, and an extended model.

Alchemy has more kinship with Astrology than with theoretical physics or modern chemistry. Specifically, Alchemy was a pseudoscience - a narrative about how the universe works that was not subject to rigorous testing, understanding of statistics, or other elements of the scientific method.

So, yes, when your model of the universe is made up, but not really tested, when it finally fails (in Alchemy's case, with the discovery of the chemical elements that did not follow Alchemical principles), it leads to a "paradigm shift" - the whole story falls over at once.

When your model of the universe is based on rigorous testing, you maintain contact with reality, and have been shifting you paradigm in small ways with every step, and have no massive failure point that leads you to rethink everything.

But the story fell over because it was tested. It wasn't modern science, but ancient and medieval people had models thwt were being applied to the real world...more like engineering than modern science, but the work done led to later findings. And there is a rather shocking gap between when early chemistry really got going in a scientific way and when it was realized the four elements were not the base of observed phenomenon.

 

[Umbran]

But the story fell over because it was tested.

Not really. Alchemy (and Astrology, since I mentioned it) is a qualitative model, not a quantitative one. And you cannot test what you cannot measure.

It wasn't modern science, but ancient and medieval people had models thwt were being applied to the real world...

But, they lacked measurement or reproducibility. The language of full-blown alchemy is very complex and qualitative. It existed largely so that, no matter what happened with an alchemical activity (I hesitate to call them "experiments"), you can use that language to tell a story that supports the model as being right, hiding the fact that you don't actually know what is actually happening. This is how pseudoscience operates.

And there is a rather shocking gap between when early chemistry really got going in a scientific way and when it was realized the four elements were not the base of observed phenomenon.

Not really. Anton Lavoisier's major contribution to chemistry is being the first to be quantitative about it. And as soon as he did that (with quantifying his work with Oxygen and Hydrogen) he blew the phlogiston theory of alchemy (and the rest of alchemy by extension) out of the water.

Basically, as soon as anyone came up with a way to actually test the theory, in a reproducible manner, the theory utterly failed.

 

[Parmandur]

Not really. Anton Lavoisier's major contribution to chemistry is being the first to be quantitative about it. And as soon as he did that (with quantifying his work with Oxygen and Hydrogen) he blew the phlogiston theory of alchemy (and the rest of alchemy by extension) out of the water.

I would consider the 18th century shockingly late, given how much identifiable science had been going on prior.