Are scientists overthinking a question on anti-matter?

[Themohawkninja]

I'm an engineer, not a scientist, so maybe that's why this statement strikes me as a bit odd. For all intents and purposes, practical models are the truth. We trust our instruments and models to the degree to which they allow us to make practically accurate predictions. This is really the only objective measure of truth. And physics hasn't turned out to be wrong; it is possible to predict -- with high accuracy -- a wide range of phenomena using only Newtonian mechanics. Physics has turned out to be approximate, but is still almost always Good Enough®.

In astrophysics, much of the physics is unknown, as the matter being modeled is under such high densities, and at very high temperatures, plus we cannot directly observe the processes going on to model them accurately.

[K^2]

I'm an engineer, not a scientist, so maybe that's why this statement strikes me as a bit odd. For all intents and purposes, practical models are the truth. We trust our instruments and models to the degree to which they allow us to make practically accurate predictions. This is really the only objective measure of truth. And physics hasn't turned out to be wrong; it is possible to predict -- with high accuracy -- a wide range of phenomena using only Newtonian mechanics. Physics has turned out to be approximate, but is still almost always Good Enough®.

That's very engineer of you. I mean that in the best possible sense. And yes, if that's your measure of "truth", then you are right. But to most people, "truth" depending on desired accuracy is something wild. If you launch a satellite, Newtonian Mechanics is the truth, but when it comes to programming a GPS sat, it is not? People like objective truth to be, well, more objective.

So suppose there is such a thing as an objective reality. And suppose there exists a mathematical model describing that reality that is precise to arbitrary precision. There is no guarantee that such a thing exists, but if it did, it's something that most people would agree to call "the truth". This is usually what we strive towards with physics. And, of course, it's an obviously unreachable goal. All we can do is try to get a little closer. And even if the "true model" just happens to be simple enough for us to stumble upon it, we won't really be able to verify it as such.

Of course, even if you have a model, many people might question if whether it actually is the answer to the question of what is reality. We have equivalent models with very different interpretations. Consider the difference between Copenhagen Interpretation and Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, for example. Both make absolutely identical predictions for any experiment. One says there is one world and one time-line, the other says there are many parallel worlds with their own time-lines. They can't both be "the truth," as far as most people chose to think of it. And yet, there is no way to distinguish between them scientifically.

[Mr Shifty]

That's very engineer of you. I mean that in the best possible sense.

I wouldn't take it any other way:) I appreciate the reply. I'm actually pretty interested in this kind of metaphysical musing.

So suppose there is such a thing as an objective reality. And suppose there exists a mathematical model describing that reality that is precise to arbitrary precision. There is no guarantee that such a thing exists, but if it did, it's something that most people would agree to call "the truth". This is usually what we strive towards with physics. And, of course, it's an obviously unreachable goal.

This is a very teleological notion of truth. I am not necessarily skeptical about the notion of an objective, measurable reality, but I'm also not very interested in it. I like the idea of truth as the bleeding edge of the advancing wavefront of human knowledge. That way, it's actually within our grasp and not something eternally unattainable. And its imprecision is a boon; you can't actually design or build something to arbitrary precision.

Consider the difference between Copenhagen Interpretation and Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, for example.

I'm way out of my expertise here, but I'd be more of the "Shut up and calculate" camp. Unless/until the models can make testable predictions that differentiate them, they are merely useless (though certainly interesting!) speculation.

[Nuke]

its sort of like the math that is used in electronics engineering is technically wrong, but practically accurate, because of an early assumption on which direction the electrons were flowing that turned out to be completely backwards. nobody has had the heart to force the ee people to learn new physically accurate equations

[K^2]

I am not necessarily skeptical about the notion of an objective, measurable reality, but I'm also not very interested in it.

I mostly share that position, but a lot of people don't, and they have unreasonable expectations of science. I always feel a need to caution against it.

Unless/until the models can make testable predictions that differentiate them, they are merely useless (though certainly interesting!) speculation.

It's definitely the "Unless" not "Until." They are mathematically equivalent and there are theorems to that end. Point is, you can have a precise (or precise enough) model, and still have absolutely no answer to the question of, "How does the world actually work." And yes, I agree that if we can't measure the difference, it doesn't matter. The world, to us, after all, is just a sum of our perceptions. But that still leaves some void which I can at least understand a lot of people yearning to fill.