3 ms·

There's a lot of 'everyday life' we don't understand. In fact most of our scholarship is in the domain of 'everyday life'. From biology and chemistry to compute

There's a lot of 'everyday life' we don't understand. In fact most of our scholarship is in the domain of 'everyday life'. From biology and chemistry to computer science and economics and sociology. What the author meant was that nothing that will be discovered in this domain will shake fundamental physics. Things that will shake fundamental physics won't come from 'everyday life', but rather from extreme environments like those found in particle accelerators, and through study of gravitational waves, CMB etc.

Avshalom 11y ago
No, no. Turbulence, and especially the laminar flow -> turbulent flow transition is A) not really understood B) could absolutely have massive impact if we did understand it (obviously it's possible that that real understanding could be so complicated that the existing heuristics are essentially as good as we could get anyway).
- macspoofing 11y ago
  >could absolutely have massive impact if we did understand it Impact on what? On the standard model and QED?
- algirau 11y ago
  We have not solved the Navier-Stokes equation for non general cases. This equations describes how the velocity, pressure, temperature, and density of a moving fluid are related. If everything was already answered, then why offer $1M to solve an equation? Fun?
dnautics 11y ago
> What the author meant was that nothing that will be discovered in this domain will shake fundamental physics. Things that will shake fundamental physics won't come from 'everyday life', but rather from extreme environments like those found in particle accelerators, and through study of gravitational waves, CMB etc. And you don't know that a priori. It's possible that with a hightened level of simulation, and accurate measurement of an unusual phenomenon, some fine structure emerges. I'm not going to hold my breath, but sometimes you are surprised. The yellow color of gold is a consequence of relativisitic effects, so it could have been entirely possible (if seemingly rather unlikely) that humanity discovered relativity from that angle instead.
- macspoofing 11y ago
  >And you don't know that a priori. But nobody said it was 'a priori'. It comes from thousands of experiments which probed relevant energy levels, over a period of decades. >It's possible that with a hightened level of simulation, and accurate measurement of an unusual phenomenon, some fine structure emerges. Sure, in fact we know the Standard Model is incomplete because it doesn't take into account dark matter.
htns 11y ago
The most glaring fundamental omission of physics absolutely comes from everyday life. It is subjective experience, consciousness, qualia, or whatever you prefer to call it.
- stromgo 11y ago
  Subjective experience is an emergent property of fundamental physics. It is not fundamental in itself and it doesn't seem to require any new fundamental physics. If you think that some new fundamental physical law is needed, then maybe you can explain what it does by describing what would happen if we removed it from the universe? Would people stop dead? Would people behave completely normally except they would answer "no" when asked "are you conscious?"
  - tamana 11y ago
    The answer is we don't know!

Avshalom 11y ago

No, no. Turbulence, and especially the laminar flow -> turbulent flow transition is A) not really understood B) could absolutely have massive impact if we did understand it (obviously it's possible that that real understanding could be so complicated that the existing heuristics are essentially as good as we could get anyway).

macspoofing 11y ago
>could absolutely have massive impact if we did understand it Impact on what? On the standard model and QED?
algirau 11y ago
We have not solved the Navier-Stokes equation for non general cases. This equations describes how the velocity, pressure, temperature, and density of a moving fluid are related. If everything was already answered, then why offer $1M to solve an equation? Fun?

dnautics 11y ago

> What the author meant was that nothing that will be discovered in this domain will shake fundamental physics. Things that will shake fundamental physics won't come from 'everyday life', but rather from extreme environments like those found in particle accelerators, and through study of gravitational waves, CMB etc. And you don't know that a priori. It's possible that with a hightened level of simulation, and accurate measurement of an unusual phenomenon, some fine structure emerges. I'm not going to hold my breath, but sometimes you are surprised. The yellow color of gold is a consequence of relativisitic effects, so it could have been entirely possible (if seemingly rather unlikely) that humanity discovered relativity from that angle instead.

macspoofing 11y ago
>And you don't know that a priori. But nobody said it was 'a priori'. It comes from thousands of experiments which probed relevant energy levels, over a period of decades. >It's possible that with a hightened level of simulation, and accurate measurement of an unusual phenomenon, some fine structure emerges. Sure, in fact we know the Standard Model is incomplete because it doesn't take into account dark matter.

htns 11y ago

The most glaring fundamental omission of physics absolutely comes from everyday life. It is subjective experience, consciousness, qualia, or whatever you prefer to call it.

stromgo 11y ago
Subjective experience is an emergent property of fundamental physics. It is not fundamental in itself and it doesn't seem to require any new fundamental physics. If you think that some new fundamental physical law is needed, then maybe you can explain what it does by describing what would happen if we removed it from the universe? Would people stop dead? Would people behave completely normally except they would answer "no" when asked "are you conscious?"
- tamana 11y ago
  The answer is we don't know!