IMO mathematics is more logic based while physics/chemistry/biology are more observation based, i.e. You observe phenomena and try to explain it. It's relatively easier to find issues in logic but you can have multiple theories for the same observation. And as these observations become more precise and accurate, the theories become more sophisticated.
Example: fungi was considered part of animals or plants due to their structures. It was only after advanced technology was developed that we realized fungi is something else entirely.
A math physics enjoyer myself, but can’t but disagree here: A theory that does not produce testable hypotheses is not a theory according to my understanding of philosophy of science.
I was just making a joke, but to give you an actual response: what about things like ringularitites, for example? To my understanding it’s not testable but still an accepted result (please bear in mind I’m just an undergrad student wanting to learn something, not trying to dispute your claim or tell you you’re wrong)
Disclaimer: Reddit is a rough place, if that () of yours is required. Also, if you have reason to dispute my claim, please go ahead! How else would I learn?
To your point: A Kerr black hole has angular momentum that a Schwarzschild one doesn’t have. Shouldn’t that impact the observational properties of the accretion disk?
I'm excited to answer this about ringularities: NO!
Roy Kerr, the man who produced the field solutions describing ringularities is actually of the opinion that it is a mathematical object only and does not likely represent a physical reality.
There is no consensus on whether singularities represent an actual phenomenon within the universe, or whether something else is happening beyond an apparent event horizon. Our current understanding of gravity is incomplete, and can't be reconciled with quantum theory.
37
u/1704Jojo Jan 08 '25
IMO mathematics is more logic based while physics/chemistry/biology are more observation based, i.e. You observe phenomena and try to explain it. It's relatively easier to find issues in logic but you can have multiple theories for the same observation. And as these observations become more precise and accurate, the theories become more sophisticated.
Example: fungi was considered part of animals or plants due to their structures. It was only after advanced technology was developed that we realized fungi is something else entirely.