alt Hacker News> physics is stuck at a local optimum.
I think I heard somewhere that the trouble with string theory is it can describe anything if you tune it just in a right way. It reminds me of epicycles, they also had this property, you can add more and more epicycles to describe literally any observation data.
> Way (1) is what kicked off quantum mechanics. Way (2) is what kicked off Newtonian mechanics.
Hmm... What was the way that kicked Copernicus to redraw epicycles with the Sun in the center? I mean, is there some notes on these? For example, Newton took as granted that celestial bodies move by elliptical orbits, and somehow he guessed that the gravitation law has r^2 in its denominator, and so he invented calculus to prove, that if you have r^2 in the denominator then you'll get elliptical orbits. The question where Newton got his guess it remains open for me, but back to Copernicus, what was his way?
Maybe he thought how movements of planets will look if seen from the Sun, and so he had redrawn epicycles to take a look, and he got circles? (I'm not sure that it could work this way, I propose this answer to my question just to give an example of the kind of an answer I'd like to have).
I ask this question for two reasons.
1. I believe that Copernicus advanced the science not with surpising physical observation and not with mathematical advances, to me it seems more like surprising mathematical observation. I'm not sure what was that observation exactly.
2. Can one apply techniques of Copernicus to the modern physics? I suspect that it will not. I'm sure physicist already tried everything and there were (is) a lot of them and they are pretty smart people, so it is highly unlikely that Copernicus can help them in any way. But I'm still curious, what Copernicus would do? Would he tried to imagine how electron flying through a double-slit might observe scientists-observers? Or maybe it would try to feel the pain of a black that may believe that the whole universe is falling on it? I bet that the true Copernicus idea would require to use some pretty hard mind-altering substances, and I like such ideas.
Replies
My understanding as a layman:
1. Copernicus figured out that if you put the sun at the center, then epicycles weren't necessary, and the math got easier --- because epicycles were based on a mis-understanding of the actual state of the universe --- I don't believe that anyone has identified such a non-alignment of fact and reasoning and observation for contemporary physics.
2. The problem is, modern physics is arguably getting boxed into a corner by approaching an end game state where the fundamental particles are getting identified, but are so small and difficult to separate out, that measurements are challenging to the point that while one can speculate and do math, actually proving out the speculations experimentally and taking actual measurements is expensive or so difficult to reason about that there doesn't seem an obvious path to an experiment, e.g., it looks as if the electron may be a fundamental particle, which is a sufficiently difficult concept to parse that it led to "The one-electron universe"/"The single electron hypothesis" and if that is the case, it walls off a not insignificant portion of particle physics at a size/state which can't be gotten smaller than.
Before Newton, Kepler already figured out that orbits were ellipses. Newton figured out why orbits are ellipses.
I can probably answer the r^2 question: it’s the scaling associated with the surface area of a sphere. So if you have light source, or a sound source, that’s how it scales with distance. It would have been relatively simple for someone as smart as Newton to guess that gravity worked the same way.
It’s only really our current understanding of gravity that makes it unobvious.
Everett proposed that observation happens relative to observer, it's exactly Copernicus's observation. Some people buy it, many don't, so I guess heliocentric style thinking is still counterintuitive. Ironically, an argument against Everett's interpretation is the same Aristotle used against heliocentrism: "it's not supported by observation" (meaning relativity is unobservable).
Copernicus used the same circular-orbit-plus-epicycles system as Ptolemy, just the orbits were centered around the sun (kind of---each planet had its own circle, with the sun only approximately in the middle). The system actually had more epicycles than Ptolemy's and was less accurate. It wasn't an advance in any meaningful sense.
The real breakthrough was Kepler, who dropped the idea that planets moved in circles. It was indeed partly a mathematical breakthrough and the reason Kepler's work took a while to catch on is that people couldn't understand his math at first. But it was also empirical, as Kepler had access to new and much more precise observational data collected by his mentor Tycho Brahe.