3 ms·
You don't consider ER=EPR as novel? Or CA-duality? Agreed that Post-quantum gravity is really cool and "fresh" Higgs/Bell/GW were experimental results, I was
by hughesjj 2y ago
You don't consider ER=EPR as novel? Or CA-duality? Agreed that Post-quantum gravity is really cool and "fresh"
Higgs/Bell/GW were experimental results, I was indeed trying to show that there's a huge lag between prediction and observation.
Imo the paradigm shift that we're slowly undergoing is thinking about physics from a information theoretic perspective instead of a kinematics one. I'd argue that's even more fundamental of a change than Newtonian physics to early GR & QM.
- hughesjj 2y agoEh, I suppose that was more the Field era
- naasking 2y agoThey might be novel mathematical constructs but seemingly have no bearing on our universe. ER=EPR doesn't really solve anything because GR remains fundamentally incompatible with QM's linearity. That's the problem that needs to be solved. The core idea of ER=EPR wasn't even particularly novel, as Hadley effectively did something very similar back in 1997 [1]. CA-duality is again mathematically interesting, but physically dubious because it's based on anti-de Sitter space, which does not describe our universe. Information theoretical formulations of QM are mildly interesting, but I don't think they will be revolutionary, and I don't think they are tackling the core problem, which is QM's linearity where we classically observe a non-linear universe. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9706018 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9706018