4 ms·

Is it just me or there is really something amiss with this article? Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more tha

by nebula 18y ago

Is it just me or there is really something amiss with this article? Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. So, if they have NOW confirmed this, why didn't the article cite the work that confirmed this? Also the article didn't mention anything on who confirmed and how. It talks about some computer simulations and concludes: Although physicists expected theory to match experiment eventually, it is an important landmark. Since when did physicists start considering computer simulations as experimental evidence?

kiplinger 18y ago
Hmm, I do see your point, to me, the article is about why the theory has been so difficult to prove.
- nebula 18y ago
  the article is about why the theory has been so difficult to prove. You mean the theoretical proof?
  - kiplinger 18y ago
    The computational resources required to crunch the numbers.
kurtosis 18y ago
Our research group has had experimental papers rejected because they did not agree with first principles simulations. The issue is that at least in quantum chemistry and materials physics, the theory is simple and easy to write down but making quantitative predictions from the theory requires the use of (a) massive computational resources, (b) inspired approximations, or (c) all of the above. (unless it's an "emergent" phenomenon) It's debatable what the relationship between theory, experiment and computation is. I submitted an abstract to an APS conference yesterday and I noticed that you were asked to classify your submission as "theoretical", "experimental", or "computational". I think I agree with the APS in that all three styles are useful and complementary to each other.