What's the difference between Theoretical Physics and Philosophy?

File: graviphoton.png (38KB, 891x427px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 891x427px

Seriously?

>>8823384
Theoretical physics is necessarily falsifiable.

You can't see radio waves. LOL BUT HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE IT LOL

science is dum

>>8823396
Is the absence of Supersymmetry proof of the absence of God?

>>8823403
No it isn't.
Dark Matter/ Energy, Many Worlds, Tachyons, etc. are no more falsifiable than Hard Solipsism.

>>8823411
Religious person:
>Hmm, the math and our observations of the universe don't add up the way we thought. Must be God at work doing something we can't observe or understand

Theoretical Physicist:
>>Hmm, the math and our observations of the universe don't add up the way we thought. Must be some shit we can't observe or interact with that we don't understand at work. Let's call it "dark *"

>>8823415
>i know all abut dat dem dere sciense
>it is all BULLshit
>i showed them i are smart i know better than to listen to that BULLshit

>>8823425
Herp derp

>>8823426
>>8823428

Don't you have to finish your product rule homework?

>>8823425
There are things we don't understand? This is earthshattering news.

>>8823396
This is just Tumblr-gender-tier

>>8823415
/sci/ is a no brainlets allowed board, please leave

>>8823489
/sci/ is almost entirely made up of pathological cases of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If this is not clear to you, I may have some bad news for you.

>>8823415
tachyons and many worlds is pop sci bullshit
dark matter/energy are known unsolved problems in experimental astrophysics

>>8823498
Dunning-Kruger applies especially to those who invoke it

>>8823763
lel

These things may be falsifiable at some point in the future, OP. There's nothing wrong with hypothesizing. There's also nothing wrong with philosophy.

File: 7iLNOU.jpg (257KB, 517x552px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 517x552px

>>8823384
> difference between Theoretical Physics and Philosophy

Physics is an instrument that philosophy uses to find aswers for some of it's questions.
You can't separate science from philosophy.

>>8823384
The scientific method and peer review, mostly.

>>8823384
Well in physics we can write down an action and then from that generate a series of predictions. So in the case of a dark photon, it arises pretty naturally:
>What if dark matter has some self-interaction?

From there we can create a [math] U(1) [/math] gauge theory that, obviously, is similar to electromagnetism. Then we can generate:[eqn] \mathcal { S } \frac { 1 } { c } \int d^4 x \left [ -\frac { 1 } { 4 } B _{ \mu \nu }B ^{ \mu \nu } + \frac { 1 } { 2 l^2 } B _{ \mu } B ^{ \mu } - \frac { 1 } { c } J^{ \mu } _{ D } B _{ \mu } [/eqn] From that we could generate some predictions of how we expect a dark photon to behave. However they aren't very long ranged, so it's probably going to be hard to observe directly. So we could couple the dark photon to a regular photon through kinetic mixing, then do the same as before. So basically it's different from philosophy because:
>We can generate quantitative predictions
>Those predictions can then be tested

AFAIK philosophy can't do that.

>>8823384
Terminology. But then again, if you get deep enough in any field, that's the only difference anyway.