Is physics inherently subjective?

>Are inherently objective things inherently subjective ?
No.

>>8270221
Because every theory is based on observation, and as of now at least all observation is subjective, all physics is subjective as a science

>>8270238
Is this line of thinking a modern phenomenon?

>>8270238
>theory
>based on observation

Theory is based on formulas
Observations just confirm them

>>8270238

Physics is hardly subjective since everyone will get the same result.

A photons speed in vaccum doesn't change because someone else is clocking it.

>>8270254
If the observer directly affects the observation, how can the following theory be considered anything but subjective?

No. It doesn't matter where you go in space, our understanding of physics will apply.

>>8270221
what is "subjective"?

>>8270260

>Implying everything about our current model of physics is correct.

Shiggy diggy

>>8270265
Well, maybe not ENTIRELY on a microscopic scale but we've done pretty well to comprehend reality elsewhere.

I implore you to find a single flaw in our current understanding.

>>8270259
Because the theory tells you HOW the observer effects the observation

>>8270264
I'm probably in over my head here, so I'm just gonna quote the book that presented the idea to me
>We can accurately observe either the position or the velocity of a subatomic particle -But not both at once. The observer must choose his experimental set-up, but by doing so he excludes (or rather must "sacrifice") some other possible set-up and its results. Furthermore, the measuring apparatus has to be included in the description of events because it has a decisive but uncontrollable influence upon the experimental set-up.
>The science of microphysics, on account of the basic "complementary" situation, is faced with the impossibility of eliminating the effects of the observer by determinable correctives and has therefore to abandon in principle any objective understanding of physical phenomena. Where classical physics still saw "determined causal natural laws of nature" we now look only for "statistic laws" with "primary possibilites".

>>8270275
He's wrong.

It just means that instead of studying a system where the observer is not part of it

You are now studying an observer-observation system.

But since you can step outside the observer-observation system and predict all the outcomes, it is still objective.

>>8270271
>I implore you to find a single flaw in our current understanding.

This is fallacy. But don't get me wrong, Im not some edgy le I hate physics guy. On the contrary I have a deep interest for physics.

And we have flaws in our current understanding, otherwise someone would have allready written the unified theory of everything, and we would be able to create artificial wormholes and super novas, but we cant, yet.

To imply that we today have already understood the entire baffeling concept of physics is laughable, because such things have been said throughout history all the time, especially at times when we knew jack shit.

One fun example is how apperently the energy principle can be broken when quantum fluctuation occurs, which is one flaw in itself.

>>8270280
If the observation is hingent on the observer, how can the underlying physics be objectively determined? If the observer-observation system produces different results depending on the observer, the observation itself cannot be considered objective, i.e. it cannot be determined independent of the observer.

>>8270288
>energy principle can be broken when quantum fluctuation occurs
nope

>>8270296
It doesn't depend on the observer

It depends on your measurement device

Imagine you are in the ocean, if you use a wave-meter, you measure waves

If you use a whale-net, you catch a whale

For some reason, you can't do both at the same time

Catching whales or measuring waves is still objective

>>8270298

Read before saying "nope". I thought you where /scientist/ here? Then you don't say "nope" when someone claims something, you say "prove it". Thats the fundamentals of science you idiot. And I can prove it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

>>8270308
That article provides several solutions to that "problem"

>>8270313

Such as?

>>8270314
fluctuations happen before planck time and therefore do not violate any principle

and they do in fact

>>8270316

Can't find that, can you please quote it?

>>8270316

Because when I read it and other articles about this problem, it clearly says that the energy princple appears to be broken.
According to quantum mechanics the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

Thus energy is created and destroyed. Giving us the idea that the energy principle have been broken.

>>8270318
"The amplitude of quantum fluctuations is controlled by Planck's constant ℏ"

>>8270327
The principle comes from a formula that only applies to >ℏ

>>8270328
>>8270331

How do we explain that particles and electromagnetic waves can pop into and out of existence it is not in fact breaking the energy principle?

>>8270254
>Observations just confirm them
It just means the theory is consistent with observations.

>>8270221
Yes because math is inherently subjective.

>>8270221
Oh look, it's a
>we can't know nuffin'
Thread

>>8270337
because the energy principle only applies at a larger scale than the one at which it happens

>>8270427
plus the total energy is 0 because fluctuations cancel each other

>>8270430
And what if they don't necessarily do that?

>>8270238
You're conflating ideas. Observation is not entirely subjective. We can observe electrons with machines, which has nothing to do with human experience. In fact, a human can never experience and electron the way a measuring device cant. What you're trying to say is that science is inductive, not subjective.

>>8270427

Please elaborate? Do you mean that the principle only applies to a scale larger than the one where it don't?

>>8270446
No, virtual particle creation leads to the production and decay/annihilation of particles almost faster than they can be measured. Yes there's a seeming violation, but only for a very small amount of time.

You'll never see an entire atom pop out of the vacuum, for example

Think about it this way:
"Is physics surjective?"
Ba dumm tsss

File: stoned statue.jpg (167KB, 900x1334px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 900x1334px

One person argues with another "physics is subjective"
He is then defenestrated by another man who claims physics is objective
But, alas, the man does not fall, because he observes gravity differently than the man who threw him from the window.

>>8270859
Haha

>>8270221
>subjective

*surjective

>>8270238
That's because it's a measurement. Something can be 1 meter long or 100 centimeters, but the length is still the same. So to answer your question no and you're a fucking idiot.

Posts like these make me honestly reconsider my life and really just how I fucked up.