4 ms·
What seems clear, so far, is that our models are still not perfect and can’t describe all of our observations or experiments. We’re talking about the map, not
by stephc_int13 4y ago
What seems clear, so far, is that our models are still not perfect and can’t describe all of our observations or experiments.
We’re talking about the map, not reality.
Given that after quite a bit of time we have almost reached scientific consensus, but not quite, I think humility is required.
There are a few hints showing that QM is not the end game.
- vecter 4y agoCurious, what are those hints?
- senko 4y agoGravity
- sampo 4y agoDo the double slit experiment in a non-uniform gravitational field. Nobody knows how to calculate that. We have two perfectly good and internally consistent theories: Quantum mechanics and general relativity. But they are inconsistent with each other.
- vecter 4y agoAh yes. My understanding is more that we have to make gravity fit within QM as opposed to the other way around, but perhaps a unified theory would require changes to QM also?
- FridayoLeary 4y agoScience was pretty much agreed upon in the Middle Ages. Most philosophers agreed that Aristotle and the Greeks had pretty much worked everything out. Point is a consensus can be very far from the truth. As it stands the Standard Model is, to quote somebody 'a hideous cludge'. It relies on many invisible, undetectable entities such as 'dark matter', 'dark energy' all kinds of subatomic particles, yet it cannot explain gravity. It also introduces concepts such as inflation. Worse still, it is contradicted by qm! I think it's still possible that the entire standard model might still be uprooted in favour of something simpler.
- drdeca 4y agoDark matter and dark energy aren’t part of the standard model. You object to it allegedly including those things (it doesn’t), despite apparently not knowing what those phrases refer to? As, dark energy and dark matter are both ideas relating to gravity. So, why would you think that the standard model includes those things, given that the purpose of those ideas is to describe/explain some observations about gravity, and that the standard model does not attempt to describe gravity? Or... possibly it is more that you don’t know what “the standard model” refers to? Yeah, that seems to be it.