5 ms·

So which of today's accepted theories are in error? Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity do not agree so at least one must be incorrect yet both are widely

So which of today's accepted theories are in error? Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity do not agree so at least one must be incorrect yet both are widely if not completely accepted.

FredPret 3y ago
We're certainly zero-ing in on the truth though, which is extremely exciting
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  Are we though? All I see is a lot of effort followed by a lot of reaching (yet again) for the aspirin and/or whiskey. Have you any examples showing recent convergence between quantum & relativity?
  - FredPret 3y ago
    Pessimism much? We have GPS satellites orbiting, we can land a robot on a specific spot on Mars, and we can make a ton of predictions about how the universe should look on both huge and tiny scales and have those pan out. Sure we don't have a single theory of everything yet, but our mental model is asymptotically converging to our observations.
    - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
      > Pessimism much I'm asking for facts, hope doesn't come into it. > ...our mental model is asymptotically converging Which is not what I'm picking up, so have you any evidence to change my mind? TIA
      - FredPret 3y ago
        If you're able to look at the modern world and all it's marvels - none of which are possible without a testable and provable understanding of an increasing fraction what's out there - and you'd still rather be down in the dumps, there's no amount of evidence anyone can offer that would change your mind.
        _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        Have you any evidence of quantum and relativistic theories converging? If so, please point. I'm unaware of any.
        FredPret 3y ago
        Nobody claimed that these two theories are converging. I said our overall mental model of reality is converging with reality. We're zeroing in on the truth. One day that might include a unified theory.
        _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        dave333 said > So which of today's accepted theories are in error? Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity do not agree so at least one must be incorrect yet both are widely if not completely accepted. You (FredPret) responded > We're certainly zero-ing in on the truth though, which is extremely exciting I had to read that as you implying closing in on some resolution of QM with relativity. Hence my confusion.
        FredPret 3y ago
        Ah I get it. You're right, my original post was ambiguous, and wrong from that point of view. Sorry for my snark.
        _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        Nah probs mate, it happens
summerdown2 3y ago
A scientific theory doesn't have to be wrong or right. It can simply be useful as long as the limitations are understood. Eg, the domains where it applies and the domains where you shouldn't use it. Isaac Asimov wrote a really great essay about this, in which he pointed out that some people thought the Earth was flat. And it is flat, on a local scale. Then people thought it was round. And it is round, just not exactly. Then it was considered an oblate sphere. And it is an oblate sphere - just not exactly. The main theme of his essay is to point out that a theory can be wrong, but pretty accurate. Enough for rough work. And the one that replaces it can also be wrong, but even closer. Etc. So all theories in succession can be wrong. The real question is how wrong a theory is, and how useful it is. Here's the essay: https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
- ngcc_hk 3y ago
  As long as you do not kill people who even talk about these … And whilst one can say these, one may note something like say letting blood can cure disease it is not. Hence talking is ok. But actually using it …
wolverine876 3y ago
> So which of today's accepted theories are in error? It's not the same kind of error. Because science is based on factual observation, it tends to agree with the facts of reality. > Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity do not agree so at least one must be incorrect That's not so. It's not a binary choice at all. Both are accurate - both accurately predict certain phenomena and they will continue to do that. Someday, hopefully, someone will come up with an explanation that encapsulates both of them.
pdonis 3y ago
> Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity do not agree More precisely, they are incompatible if you treat them as fundamental theories of everything. But neither QM nor GR claims to be any such thing. That is a key difference between our current theories and schemes like Aristotelian physics, or for that matter Newtonian physics. Both Newton and Aristotle thought their theories were theories of everything. We know that neither the QM we currently have nor the GR we currently have are theories of everything; they are just models valid within particular domains. Those domains are very wide, but (a) neither one covers everything, and (b) there is virtually no overlap between them, and where there is (for example, quantum field theory in curved spacetime) we have ways of meshing them that work well enough.
oglop 3y ago
That doesn’t have to be the case. It could be we come to realize that reality isn’t one geometry but many and they are just 2 of n geometries which fit together. That doesn’t seem to make sense, but that’s just the idea of cohomology from what I understand, wrongly probably. That seems more likely than the thing that happened last time repeating itself. Basically we just need Grothendieck’s ideas to percolate to the physics people. Or not.

So which of today's accepted theories are in error? Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity do not agree so at least one must be incorrect yet both are widely if not completely accepted.

FredPret 3y ago

We're certainly zero-ing in on the truth though, which is extremely exciting

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
Are we though? All I see is a lot of effort followed by a lot of reaching (yet again) for the aspirin and/or whiskey. Have you any examples showing recent convergence between quantum & relativity?
- FredPret 3y ago
  Pessimism much? We have GPS satellites orbiting, we can land a robot on a specific spot on Mars, and we can make a ton of predictions about how the universe should look on both huge and tiny scales and have those pan out. Sure we don't have a single theory of everything yet, but our mental model is asymptotically converging to our observations.
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    > Pessimism much I'm asking for facts, hope doesn't come into it. > ...our mental model is asymptotically converging Which is not what I'm picking up, so have you any evidence to change my mind? TIA
    - FredPret 3y ago
      If you're able to look at the modern world and all it's marvels - none of which are possible without a testable and provable understanding of an increasing fraction what's out there - and you'd still rather be down in the dumps, there's no amount of evidence anyone can offer that would change your mind.
      - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        Have you any evidence of quantum and relativistic theories converging? If so, please point. I'm unaware of any.
        FredPret 3y ago
        Nobody claimed that these two theories are converging. I said our overall mental model of reality is converging with reality. We're zeroing in on the truth. One day that might include a unified theory.
        _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        dave333 said > So which of today's accepted theories are in error? Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity do not agree so at least one must be incorrect yet both are widely if not completely accepted. You (FredPret) responded > We're certainly zero-ing in on the truth though, which is extremely exciting I had to read that as you implying closing in on some resolution of QM with relativity. Hence my confusion.
        FredPret 3y ago
        Ah I get it. You're right, my original post was ambiguous, and wrong from that point of view. Sorry for my snark.
        _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        Nah probs mate, it happens

summerdown2 3y ago

A scientific theory doesn't have to be wrong or right. It can simply be useful as long as the limitations are understood. Eg, the domains where it applies and the domains where you shouldn't use it. Isaac Asimov wrote a really great essay about this, in which he pointed out that some people thought the Earth was flat. And it is flat, on a local scale. Then people thought it was round. And it is round, just not exactly. Then it was considered an oblate sphere. And it is an oblate sphere - just not exactly. The main theme of his essay is to point out that a theory can be wrong, but pretty accurate. Enough for rough work. And the one that replaces it can also be wrong, but even closer. Etc. So all theories in succession can be wrong. The real question is how wrong a theory is, and how useful it is. Here's the essay: https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

ngcc_hk 3y ago
As long as you do not kill people who even talk about these … And whilst one can say these, one may note something like say letting blood can cure disease it is not. Hence talking is ok. But actually using it …

wolverine876 3y ago

> So which of today's accepted theories are in error? It's not the same kind of error. Because science is based on factual observation, it tends to agree with the facts of reality. > Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity do not agree so at least one must be incorrect That's not so. It's not a binary choice at all. Both are accurate - both accurately predict certain phenomena and they will continue to do that. Someday, hopefully, someone will come up with an explanation that encapsulates both of them.

pdonis 3y ago

> Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity do not agree More precisely, they are incompatible if you treat them as fundamental theories of everything. But neither QM nor GR claims to be any such thing. That is a key difference between our current theories and schemes like Aristotelian physics, or for that matter Newtonian physics. Both Newton and Aristotle thought their theories were theories of everything. We know that neither the QM we currently have nor the GR we currently have are theories of everything; they are just models valid within particular domains. Those domains are very wide, but (a) neither one covers everything, and (b) there is virtually no overlap between them, and where there is (for example, quantum field theory in curved spacetime) we have ways of meshing them that work well enough.

oglop 3y ago

That doesn’t have to be the case. It could be we come to realize that reality isn’t one geometry but many and they are just 2 of n geometries which fit together. That doesn’t seem to make sense, but that’s just the idea of cohomology from what I understand, wrongly probably. That seems more likely than the thing that happened last time repeating itself. Basically we just need Grothendieck’s ideas to percolate to the physics people. Or not.