Is physics fatally flawed?

Question

In physics one often models a system using linear equations...not because the system IS linear, but because these equations can be solved!
Isn't this a fatal flaw?...wouldn't physicists be better off doing Economics? At least everyone knows that it is a deceit

Jeez....this is more fun than winding up yanks!

I shouldn't really take the p*ss out of guys who can't do maths.....but come on guys, Physics ain't even self-consistent

Physics is so great...it can't even handle a simple thing like the 3 body problem

Answer 1

Classical physics is certainly flawed when compared to Quantum physics.
They are worlds apart as far as I understand it!
Bewildering isn't it?

Answer 2

In introductory physics courses, it is true that people model systems using linear equations because they can be solved easily. Usually, though, you are restricted to solving problems where the linear equations represent a good approximation of reality (i.e. the problems usually have phrases like "assumed to be in a vacuum", etc.).

Much of modern research in some areas of physics is involved with investigating what happens in the regimes where the non-linearities are important. This often requires that the equations be solved numerically on a computer, rather than with pencil and paper.

Finally, there is a fundamental point in science: results of theoretical calculations are tested by numerous experiments. If a theoretical physicist claims that the linearization of the equations he/she makes are not problematic, and then an experiment verifies that nature behaves the way his/her linearized equations said it would, that gives good justification for making the simplification.

Answer 3

Simplification to linear equations only represents an idealized shorthand method of prediction and modeling. When we isolate a single simple phenomenon from a complex set of phenomena, it does not mean the isolated linear equation is less true. On the contrary, we have a high probability that these simplified "proofs" of the easily solved linear equation 'fits' the idealized model. Therefore, this simplified model is easier to understand, solve (linearly) and it is easier to teach. It also means that subsequent experiments are easier to design that prove / disprove any theory, model or underlying assumption.

In regards to the "fatality" of this method...

Physics is a dynamic multidisciplinary science. It is a vital science, but it is not a living organism, therefore cannot die. To say it has "fatal" flaws represents a misunderstanding of how physicists work and what physics is.

Regarding economics...
I agree the subject of Economics includes a number of deceits or flaws in basic assumptions. The number and severity of those flaws depends on the political bent of the person teaching or selling the theory.

However, the biggest "deceit" in economics is not the discipline itself, but rather the glaring omission of crucial facts; particularly that the Federal Reserve is a criminal conspiracy of counterfeiters. That information is not available in ANY state-sponsored high school, economics, history or social science curriculum.

Regarding the comment, “Wouldn’t physicists be better off…”
No. Physicists love physics. They love the irrefutable truth, astonishing revelations and awesome beauty of physics. They are much better off in the field that they love; the field that contains such great truth, surprising beauty and never-ending challenge.

Not only that, but the world is better off for having so many great minds working on the Great Mysteries of our phenomenal universe. Unlike religion, which presupposes a single solution to all problems, is based on un-provable assumptions and produces only division and evil, Physics and physicists solve individual problems that actually provide understanding and benefit humankind.

Yes, economics is a deceit. The Federal Reserve is the second biggest deceit in human history. Physics and physicists are not deceitful, which is precisely why they are in the field of physics. Undoubtedly, if other “sciences” took the same pragmatic approach, used the same logic and discipline or had the consummate ethics of physicists, they would solve many of the world’s economic problems too.

To the extent that physics makes mistakes, physicists admit them. Other physicists review and verify all results of every theory, prediction or assumption. By itself, that process is far above the deceit of economics, politics and religion.

Physics will never die. It cannot. Unlike religion, economics or politics, Physics is robust and evolving, because Physics is based on truth and the willingness to admit mistakes. It may make simplifications through linear equations, but does not make the truth of those solutions less true. It only makes them easier to understand and utilize.

Physics is malleable, plastic, ever changing, and ever growing. Physics does not claim to know all truth. However, it does PROVE the truths it knows. Those truths demonstrate their human value everyday. As long as humans are alive, Physics will live. Therefore, Physics has a high survival-coefficient.

Religion and politics are static, rigid, dishonest, and the ultimate in deceit. Those “disciplines” cannot survive because THEY are fatally flawed.

Economics, at least as we know it now, WILL die because it is based on a fundamental flaw; that the Federal Reserve can continue to electronically counterfeit money without eventually causing collapse.

I hope that economic oppression, political subversion and religious hypocrisy will die soon. It is inevitable that they will die, because EVERYONE, including bankers, politicians and economists MUST use physics and the fruit physics bears.

So long as there are thinking intelligent humans, physics will “live.”

Answer 4

Physics is actually not flawed, and it is also selfconsistent, the problem is the imperfect reasoning of human mind.

In physics is the just about the only area where agreement exist within the Creationist concept. It is believe to say in the Scriptures: God created the universe with wisdom and affirmed it with intelligence. That intelligence is nothing else than than the physical laws that rules and regulate the universe in an active normal state.

About Econimics, Economics is based on the social model, and is actually in monetary sense nonexistent. Monetary economics is a fantasy, and as a fantasy has no balance.

It is today's economics together with the wrong social model what has damaged the world in every aspect. Today's economics is nothing else than an evil formula in which all of us are indoctrinated. And the goal is to keep the poor ....poor and the rich .....rich. But destroying both poor and rich in the long term.

Answer 5

In the sciences, we are told that everything occurs subject to physical and natural law. But those laws are simply human 'interpretation' of what exists around us and how we perceive it. As such, your linear equations are borne to satisfy the masses but things need to go much deeper. The problem there is that our human consiousness is limited, severely limited, and it takes eons to create better models of thought. So to answer your question, physics is not fatally flawed, it is the best model on the table at he moment and nothing is ideal ..... but is does bring some normality into our thinking. To understand what I mean about thinking deeper ... just think about who 'put it all there' or is this wonderful life just the result of natural law? ... and all on a sleepy Sunday morning ...

Answer 6

Physics is a serious theory explaining realities.
The mathematics models that are crated are of different quality and they is reliable in different speeds, temperatures etc. For example E=1/2m^2 is reliable only in low speeds.
I studied physic 30 years ago and then we were presented a very complicated equation give named Schrødingers e.
This one was not at all linear, but it was so complicated that it did not explain.
The physics gives us other mathematical models and formula's that are understandable, and sometimes made by measuring and statistic. If they are true, they are good.

Answer 7

Erm. Very little physics uses linear equations. Even the inverse square law is not a linear equation.

Many systems in physics are non-linear, and there is no problem modelling them.

You really should do a tiny, tiny bit of research before making extravagent claims.

Answer 8

In many problems in the real world there are 2 models;the complete model and the close enough it works model. Often the second or third order terms are really insignificant.
I do agree that economics is a deceit.

Answer 9

Much of physics is to do with measurement. If an answer produced by the compromise of using linear equations has a known margin of error it is a quite acceptable method of calculation.

Answer 10

Ok, which non linear systems are you thinking of ?

Are you suggesting that an approximation in these cases makes them invalid? I think not. One of the foundations of Physics is knowing your margin of error, and accounting for it.

Not many claims are made to be 100 percent fact / only theory.