18 May 13
...to incorporate QM into it's method.
Maybe this is already being done, but from where I sit I see a lot of division amongst reputable scientists, similar to the bickering that religionists like to throw at each other in the other forum.
(I'm not saying that happens here, rather in the "scientific world".
Does any one have any theories on how to reconcile Quantum with relativity and Newtonian science?
18 May 13
Originally posted by karoly aczelI get the feeling there is a Nobel prize in there for the person or team who does. The Brian Greene tape was interesting, touting string theory as the next big step, but so far they call it a 23rd century theory popping into the 20th and a lot of time has gone by with nothing testable as of yet. The tape I viewed seems to have been done in 2008 and he talked about CERN being able to tell if these particular gravitons were being emitted that would indicate whether there was evidence for the fundamental tenant of string theory, namely 10 dimensions plus one of time.
...to incorporate QM into it's method.
Maybe this is already being done, but from where I sit I see a lot of division amongst reputable scientists, similar to the bickering that religionists like to throw at each other in the other forum.
(I'm not saying that happens here, rather in the "scientific world".
Does any one have any theories on how to reconcile Quantum with relativity and Newtonian science?
Greene said they might have data on that in 5 years. If that was really 2008 when the film was made, then the 5 years is up and I hear nothing in the news about vagrant gravitons. CERN has been a bit on the busy side lately sussing out the Higgs Boson, and now they think there may be more than one of the little buggers and they are in an extended down time to up the ante to a higher energy level and won't be back online for another year at least. It would seem the LHC is the only machine powerful enough to find any kind of evidence supporting string theory so I guess we wait it out for anther few years.
Another problem with string theory is it can describe something like 10 to the 500th kinds of universes, only one which would match our real one, the 20 numbers he talks about being what they are and any other value for any one of the 20 would not make our universe possible. Like the fine constant and so forth. c not being = to what we see today. That kind of thing, our universe is extremely fine tuned for us to be here. It is kind of mind boggling in a sense. If string theory is true then maybe there ARE 10^500 kind of universes out there or even more where maybe there are only a few just like ours. It will be interesting to find out if it is going to take another super genius like a Newton or Einstein working things out on a piece of paper or will it be through the continued development of super computers, perhaps a mixed hybrid of quantum computer and classical super computers doing a set of simulations. Could go either way. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
18 May 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI agree that the 10 to the 500th kinds of universes is a big problem with such a theory, since we only have observed one universe and the current scientific method is based on observation.
I get the feeling there is a Nobel prize in there for the person or team who does. The Brian Greene tape was interesting, touting string theory as the next big step, but so far they call it a 23rd century theory popping into the 20th and a lot of time has gone by with nothing testable as of yet. The tape I viewed seems to have been done in 2008 and he talke ...[text shortened]... oing a set of simulations. Could go either way. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
The Instructor
18 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat do you care about science? All you want to do is tear all that work down so you can force your so-called science of creation to be taught along side evolution as if it were a real science. Good luck with that.
I agree that the 10 to the 500th kinds of universes is a big problem with such a theory, since we only have observed one universe and the current scientific method is based on observation.
The Instructor
Some day when we get out of the present teenage status with science, your kind of folk will be relegated to the last cave where the last Neandertal died.
18 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI guess your science talk is just too far above the Neanderthal brain.
What do you care about science? All you want to do is tear all that work down so you can force your so-called science of creation to be taught along side evolution as if it were a real science. Good luck with that.
Some day when we get out of the present teenage status with science, your kind of folk will be relegated to the last cave where the last Neandertal died.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130313.html
The Instructor
18 May 13
Originally posted by karoly aczelSure. Since that's already been done, I will refer you to any modern textbook on quantum physics. Maybe you are confusing the unification of quantum physics and relativity (which we have since about the '50s) and the unification of quantum physics and Newtonian mechanics (which we have since the dawn of quantum mechanics in the early 20th Century) with the unification of quantum physics and gravity (which we don't have yet).
Does any one have any theories on how to reconcile Quantum with relativity and Newtonian science?
I don't understand what quantum physics has to do with changing the scientific method. As a physicist working in this field, I don't understand where your observation that there is "a lot of bickering" comes from.
18 May 13
Originally posted by sonhouseOne of the things CERN is going to attempt when they are done with their upgrades, is test so-called supersymmetric theories.
I get the feeling there is a Nobel prize in there for the person or team who does. The Brian Greene tape was interesting, touting string theory as the next big step, but so far they call it a 23rd century theory popping into the 20th and a lot of time has gone by with nothing testable as of yet. The tape I viewed seems to have been done in 2008 and he talke ...[text shortened]... oing a set of simulations. Could go either way. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
No luck so far though.
As for "another super genius", I don't know any theoretical physicist who doesn't also use computers for at least part of their work. Even if you are doing mostly pen and paper stuff, computers are a handy tool - Mathematica surely is less likely to make mistakes doing integrals than I am.