You seem to be reverting back to the classical philosophers way of trying to do physics: looking for a reasonable reason for things to happen. Instead of the more modern (last 400 years) method of forgetting about reasonable reasons and just getting your hands dirty by actually measuring nature then looking for mathematical laws to model the outcomes, then using these models to predict the outcome of future events. There is nothing more or less "physical" about quantum mechanics than there is in Newtonian mechanics (F=ma). There are both mathematical models used to predict the future of a system, nothing more. Neither of them provide reasonable reasons.

Ah, so you're basically saying they rely upon empiricism to get the basic numbers and then model it regardless of what others may believe is the true form or objective essence of the material phenomenon in question, and the model is only used to get accurate results; not natural philosophy that defines reality and all the forms it comes in. I see. I think we should revert back to natural philosophy. To mire physics in a weak empiricism with an overactive mathematical imagination is not the answer, we need to find the true nature of the universe while also paying heed to a strong empiricism and a very foundational mathematical structure that describes the reality that we interpret and subscribe to when defining our empirical results through natural philosophy.

Yeah, that is pretty much right. Seems reckless, but it works.

Yeah, but there is a problem with that. It never seems to produce much, and it has no predictive power.

At the end of the day, the first method you describe produces results, the second does not. That is why the first method is what is used. Should the second method start producing results some day, I'm sure it will be used. Everyone loves a winner.

This post was edited by Azrad on Apr 30 2013 09:26am

they still haven't proven the existence of dark matter?

not 100% , but i think they are well on there way - might be proven soon - I think i heard that they might have discovered a particle of it - but might be a mistake, that was a few weeks ago.

What about e=mc^2 and the mass-energy equivalence?

"pure energy" (is there such a thing?) strikes me as non-physical, while energy represented by photons or massive particles strikes me as physical

No, definitely not.

It's not well-known here but I actually have a background in physicalism and theoretical physics, although I basically abandoned it after 10 years in university; but to be sure I was on the cutting edge and I was considered to be a potentially MAJOR contributor (I worked with logicians, metaphysicians, nuclear physicists, theoretical physicists, etc). That pre-amble isn't mean to add extra punch to my words, but if you have seen some of my previous discussions on d2jsp, you will get the sense that I know this stuff cold.

I will cut through the details and try to say something anyone can appreciate. 'Physicalism' belongs mostly to philosophy, and 'dark matter' (conceptually speaking) belongs mostly to theoretical physics; the two rarely intersect, although philosophers tend to think they understand the concept of 'dark matter' when it's actually almost wholly elusive to them. That's not an insult or a territorial remark--it's just a statement of fact. So to ask whether a construct of physics can be used to disprove a philosophical theory invites a rather contentious debate, especially when 'physicalism' is mostly adaptable to physics. I mean, yeah, when it's reduced to raw materialism (that is, a brand of materalism that almost no material supports), then you can create a multitude of arguments to demonstrate a problem. However, broadly speaking, physicalism can support just about any finding in physics, because it contains an element which both follows and wishes to hone or extend physical concepts. That is, for instance, if you want to say the universe is composed of atoms at base, then you're not going to have an interesting explanation for how any number of physical -- let's just say stuff -- exists. But then most physicalists would probably dissociate from you

It would be more useful to read up on Wittgenstein on cleaning up our linguistic garbage than to worry about whether dark matter should worry anyone concerned with maintaining physicalism. For the record, the biggest "flaw" of physicalism is that is does nothing. You just wind up talking about what may or may not be with respect to physical concepts, and inevitably you run up against myriad walls of "bad grammar" in W's sense. That's why I sought refuge in physics, where something fruitful can be done



It depends on what you mean by 'physical'.

This post was edited by RewtheBrave on Jun 20 2013 09:22am

oh trust me, it could be way dirtier than it looks. The luster in quantum mechanics comes from the fact it's pretty generic and represents very general mathematical relationships of physical objects. You can of course have a sort of empirical system of models where you have a different equation for every different scenario (chemistry is full of these). It's not as generic but rather specific, yet if compiled and categorized in quantities big enough you would have something comparable to generic models.

Everything, regardless of what form it takes, is energy.
What exactly is 'energy'? We don't know yet.

Every single thing, down to the smallest subatomic particles, are held together, or repelled, or interact in some way by energy.
Hence the simplified formula of E=mc^2
Anything with mass, even the smallest amount of mass, is a form of energy.
What about massless particles you ask?
There's nothing that says energy HAS to be present in the form of mass. Only that there is no distinction between energy and mass.
It's like the "all apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples" thing.
All mass is energy, but not all energy has to be present in the form of mass.

how do you define physical? is a wave physical? a photon? a field?
we describe things in energy levels, or having x amount of energy, but what is energy and is it physical?

id say these kinds of things need to be answered and that we know far too little about dark matter/energy to have the discussion. especially since we still dont know if it even exists and if so, in what form it exists