How close to the truth have physicists got?

Answer 1

Clever David, above, gives you the 'Heisenburg uncertainty answer' ... very cute! I have to give that one thumbs up. Nerd jokes are particularly funny, but the problem is that you often have to obtain an advanced degree to enjoy them thoroughly.

The question you ask, is unfortunately AMAZINGLY LARGE in its scope. One reason for this is that there are so many things that physicists do. Another reason for this is that the word "truth" can be used in various ways. Your question falls into a region of inquiry termed "philosophy of science," which itself is a HUGE TOPIC. I highly recommend reading liberally from the literature in the philosophy of science. Better yet, if you have access to academics, take or audit a course.

There are a couple of concepts that you would probably enjoy thinking about. The first is called the "thesis of verisimilitude." The opposing concept would roughly be called "paradigm shift."

The thesis of verisimilitude is the idea that scientific theories tend to supplant eachother over time as more accurate models are developed which more closely mimic the real world (veri = truth, similitude = the property of likeness). An example would be Newton's physical laws of motion, later supplanted by Einstein's relativity theory. The process of one theory supplanting another is understood to involve that the new theory isn't so much radically different than the old one, but it is more involved. The new theory explains everything that the old one did, but also some other things that the old theory didn't explain. Newton's model was fine for small objects, small forces and low speeds, but the space bending masses of black holes and the time-relative phenomenon of approaching the speed of light are poorly modelled by Newton's mechanics. On the other hand, Einsteinian models actually agree with Newton's at the level of bouncing billiard balls around on a table, but they also explain why astrophysical events have the properties that they do. Einstein's theory thus supplants Newton's as "closer to the truth."

Does that mean that Newton was wrong? Hardly. Engineers will still build machines based on Newton's models of the kinematics of motion. Newton's fundamental model is empirical/scientific "truth." Einstein's is too. The question isn't whether one or the other IS the law of the universe, or if yet another unified model will be even moreso, but rather whether or not the mathematical model predicts the real world phenomena based on the components of the mathematical construction actually corresponding to real world entities. If the mathematic model is made from parts that correspond to real world observations, and the behavior of the model corresponds to real world physical behaviors of systems, then the model is valid. It's a test of utility and pragmatism.

The concept of paradigm shift is radically different than the thesis of verisimilitude. Paradigm shift is what happens when the manner in which people think about the world changes over time, and the models that we use to understand our world shift accordingly. This concept comes from a much more philosphically relativistic point of view about the nature of knowledge and objective truth. Basically, the philosphical relativist will say that "truth" is such an abstract and unknowable thing, that it is functionally meaningless, and what is important is subjective and interpretive. The relativist will say that Newton's mechanics were fine for the time. People were fascinated by the first applications of mechanization and the previous, almost anamistic understanding of why objects did what they did was no longer in synch with the times. The sociologic phenomenon of mechanical invention, in the view of the relativist, CAUSED the paradigm shift toward a mechanistic description of physical principles. Einsteinian physics is similarly understood as a paradigm shift caused by a sociologic refocus on things at the extremes of scale in terms of size and energy. Truth, to the relativist, is a concept that itself is relative to the times. What is true then and what is true now are different because truth is a phenomenon of psychological agreement against a backdrop of an unknowable universe.

The relativist viewpoint is deeply bothersome to me, as a man of science, a physician, and a pragmatist. However, there are challenges that they pose that other philosophers cannot easily answer. This is an aging, but unsolved debate. I have to believe, however, that the primary motivation for putting forward this viewpoint is itself a sociologic paradigm that exists because of a lack of attempting to grapple with the primary questions of science. In short, I think that academics who spend time in the realm of language and writing can become confused about what it is like to actually investigate and interact with the natural phenomena of the world around them, and their commentary reflects this detachment.

How close to the "truth" are the physicists? Ask yourself this question as you're next driving your car over a bridge or you're looking out the window of an upper story of a high-rise building. The answer is that they've nailed it, and so have the chemists, the biologists, the biochemists, the medical scientists and many many others. There are more solved questions than can be reviewed in a thousand lifetimes of dedicated study! There are more truths to be modeled and there are models to be formulated which will supplant current models by explaining all that they do, and then some. However, the validity and pragmatic utility of our enormous existant body of knowledge should not be undersold. Only the relativists, luxuriating in the abstract world of academic words would be so audacious as to deny the sound basis of science and the truth of its descriptive models.

Answer 2

If the truth is the point where the relationships, history and reason for being for everything that exists has all been accounted for, I'd say they've reached the point where we've learned just enough to understand how much further it is we really have to go.

Billions of galaxies out there and the only thing we know about them is the information we're able to surmize from the glimpse of the radiation they produced some billions of years ago. Imagine, they could all be gone today, and we just don't know it yet.

On the other end of the spectrum we have developed a somewhat calculated understanding of the effect for some of the changes expressed by some of natures elements (the elements within our reach) as they interact with each other, but we have essentially zero knowledge as to the root cause for the changes, the why behind the what, or what strange thing lies behind the seed of energy itself.

We have a name for it, though we don't understand it. Some of us call it (him) God. I am sure that God enjoys some amusement as we crawl around in this maze, fighting to survive while we look for the key to unlock the door(s).

At present, we're still trying to gather the evidence to locate most of the doors, let alone unlock them. And while we have managed to open a few, its only to find yet another door locked behind them.

How can we measure our proximity to the truth when we're still trying to figure out where it is, let alone what it is, or why it is.

How boring things would become if we do finally figure it out. Like climbing a mountain, once you reach the top, then what? Build another mountain? For Heaven's sake... "Why?"

Perhaps at that point God will open the door leading to the second floor he has prepared for us, a whole new rhealm to explore. Call it evolution if you want, I think he'll always be one step ahead of us in that respect.

Awesome is all I can say :-)

Edited to add:

I just had another thought... not suggesting that it is so, but just imagine for a moment if the edge of the universe acted like a mirror such that when we peer "out there," what we think we see is actually like peering to the edge of a shiny bubble from the inside.

Freaky huh, sort of like the fun house of mirrors at the circus.

Now wouldn't THAT! be something. Hmmm... I could be on to something. You know how a room can appear to go to infinity if you place mirrored walls at each end. How would a person go about testing this? I think I'll post this as "my" next question. :-)

Answer 3

Just remember that throughout the years and centuries, every generation thought their knowledge and discoveries were absolute and up to date. We look at them and think how could they ever believe something so ridiculous. So I'm sure generations from now, people will look at us and our physicists and some of the things we take as truth and think how could we have ever believed in such nonsense.

Answer 4

I could tell you, but then I'd lose track of how fast their research is progressing. Or if you'd rather know how quickly they are making their advances, I'm afraid I won't have a good idea of where they already stand.

But, seriously, it's hard to say without knowing what, specifically, you want to know how well physicists understand. If it's the mechanism of the Big Bang, they've got a pretty good idea but they're constantly refining their hypotheses. If it's the structure of of nucleons, they feel that they know exactly how it works. But if it's the structure of quarks, they have a lot of different and conflicting ideas.

Answer 5

as no one knows the truth this is an impossible question, how can you say how close you are to some thing if you don’t know where it is, or even what it is. This is like the question how long is a peace of string

Answer 6

I think with dark matter and maybe even string theory they are going in the wrong direction. But progress is still being made, jsut slower than 20 years ago. Truth is hard to define in this case.

Answer 7

To be able to answer this question requires one to know what the truth is.

Answer 8

If A= Year one we haven`t even scratched the surface yet.

Answer 9

When they couldn't come up with answers they invented quantum physics which basically says that the observer influences the outcom.

Answer 10

Well, off hand,
I would say
that they have gotten
pretty dang close.