Physicists have a natural reluctance against deduced theories. Usually they require experimental verification of any physical statement. On the other hand not all physical concepts are observable. The deeper one dives into the foundation of physics the more often the possibility of experimental verification is violated. As a compensation a fully deduced physical model must be based on a solid foundation and that base must be extended by trustworthy mathematical methods.
So, in this realm, the first question that must be answered is:
"Can such model be built?"
The second question is:
"What suits as a solid foundation?"
Or equivalently:
"Are such solid foundations available?"
The third question is:
"What mathematical methods are trustworthy?"
Subscribe to the newsletter
[x]
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
Apply for a column: writing@science20.com
Donate or Buy SWAG
Please donate so science experts can write
for the public.
At Science 2.0, scientists are the journalists,
with no political bias or editorial control. We
can't do it alone so please make a difference.
We are a nonprofit science journalism
group operating under Section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code that's
educated over 300 million people.
You can help with a tax-deductible
donation today and 100 percent of your
gift will go toward our programs,
no salaries or offices.
- California Politicians Lower The 'Erin Brockovich' Chemical And Cheer Saving 0 Lives
- Vaccines Have Saved 101 Million Infants In 50 Years, Europe Needs To Let That Happen In Agriculture Too
- Biden's Nursing Home Mandate Will Do To Rural Senior Care What Obamacare Did To Hospitals
- Oil Kept Congo From Starving - Western Academics Don't Seem To Like That
- EPA Debunks Environmentalist Claims That Acephate Causes Autism
- California Is Lying About Recycling Plastic: Happy Earth Day
- Despite Little Demand, 2024 Electric Car Sales Will Be Up To 17 Million, Says Advocacy Group
Interesting insights from outside Science 2.0
© 2024 Science 2.0