4 ms·

I just finished listening to Walter Isaacson's biography "Einstein" (on CD). What was distinctive about Einstein was not how he thought but what he thought abo

by dmfdmf 13y ago

I just finished listening to Walter Isaacson's biography "Einstein" (on CD). What was distinctive about Einstein was not how he thought but what he thought about. His special theory of relativity is a solution to the contradiction between Newtonian dynamics and the new (at the time) Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics. It was a creative solution to a difficult problem. Today we have a similar theoretical contradiction between Einstein's General Relativity (large, galactic scale) and Quantum Mechanics (small, sub-atomic scale) but no one is able to reconcile these two theories and it has been shown that, as formulated, they are mathematically incompatible. For years physicists ignored this problem because satisfying, productive careers in physics could be based on pursuing all the implications of Einstein's ideas and the parallel developments in Quantum Mechanics. This period is now ending and I believe that somewhere in the world is the modern equivalent of a "patent clerk" who is working on a new conceptual approach to physics that will allow the reconciliation of GR and QM.

saraid216 13y ago
We still have patent clerks.
Datsundere 13y ago
Who is Edward Whitten?
jerf 13y ago
"For years physicists ignored this problem..." Physicits have not been ignoring the problem. String theory is but one attempt to solve the problem. Physicists have failed to solve the problem, but that is not the same thing. Look at all the older dates discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#History (Note I'm not advocating String Theory, just using it to prove my local point here that the problem has not been ignored.)
- dmfdmf 13y ago
  The context I was referring to was the era soon after the Einstein-Bohr debates culminating in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. This was an uneasy truce and the attitude at the time was "shut up and calculate" -- meaning shut up about the philosophic meaning and contradictions of the fundamental theories of physics and just apply them or flesh out the implications. This was fine until the late sixties when cosmology and black holes forced the issue of reconciling GR and QM, of which String Theory is one avenue taken. Personally, I think String Theory is a dead-end. However in my original comment when I wrote that the current theories are incompatible "as formulated", I leave open the possibility that a mathematical reformulation, such as String Theory, may resolve the issues. Personally, I think the problem will be solved by a new conceptual approach, on the order of Einstein redefining the meaning of space and time. I also think that it will come from someone outside of or on the fringes of mainstream physics, such as Julian Barbour or someone, like Einstein, just starting their career with nothing to lose on taking on such a grand challenge with no guarantee of success.
  - jerf 13y ago
    "Personally, I think the problem will be solved by a new conceptual approach," As a computer scientist, I have to admit to being partial to more discrete theories like loop quantum gravity. But whereas I'm willing to stick my nose into some science's business and declare they're all Doing It Wrong, this is not one of them. String theory is often criticized for having a lot of predictions and not much evidence, but I think that to be fair, that's true of all the competition, too. There just isn't enough evidence right now.
    - snowwrestler 13y ago
      I think it's likely that relativity and quantum mechanics will be reconciled by an information-centric theory--which could easily come out of computer science. We call some patterns of energy "information" (like an algorithm) and other patterns of energy "matter" (like a proton). It seems to me that the recent mathematical study of information could be extended to cover matter as well. Information theory is also a much younger branch of study than physics, which would seem to indicate a longer runway for fundamental discoveries and applications.

by dmfdmf 13y ago

saraid216 13y ago

We still have patent clerks.

Datsundere 13y ago

Who is Edward Whitten?

jerf 13y ago

"For years physicists ignored this problem..." Physicits have not been ignoring the problem. String theory is but one attempt to solve the problem. Physicists have failed to solve the problem, but that is not the same thing. Look at all the older dates discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#History (Note I'm not advocating String Theory, just using it to prove my local point here that the problem has not been ignored.)

dmfdmf 13y ago
The context I was referring to was the era soon after the Einstein-Bohr debates culminating in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. This was an uneasy truce and the attitude at the time was "shut up and calculate" -- meaning shut up about the philosophic meaning and contradictions of the fundamental theories of physics and just apply them or flesh out the implications. This was fine until the late sixties when cosmology and black holes forced the issue of reconciling GR and QM, of which String Theory is one avenue taken. Personally, I think String Theory is a dead-end. However in my original comment when I wrote that the current theories are incompatible "as formulated", I leave open the possibility that a mathematical reformulation, such as String Theory, may resolve the issues. Personally, I think the problem will be solved by a new conceptual approach, on the order of Einstein redefining the meaning of space and time. I also think that it will come from someone outside of or on the fringes of mainstream physics, such as Julian Barbour or someone, like Einstein, just starting their career with nothing to lose on taking on such a grand challenge with no guarantee of success.
- jerf 13y ago
  "Personally, I think the problem will be solved by a new conceptual approach," As a computer scientist, I have to admit to being partial to more discrete theories like loop quantum gravity. But whereas I'm willing to stick my nose into some science's business and declare they're all Doing It Wrong, this is not one of them. String theory is often criticized for having a lot of predictions and not much evidence, but I think that to be fair, that's true of all the competition, too. There just isn't enough evidence right now.
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    I think it's likely that relativity and quantum mechanics will be reconciled by an information-centric theory--which could easily come out of computer science. We call some patterns of energy "information" (like an algorithm) and other patterns of energy "matter" (like a proton). It seems to me that the recent mathematical study of information could be extended to cover matter as well. Information theory is also a much younger branch of study than physics, which would seem to indicate a longer runway for fundamental discoveries and applications.