Re:Can Foundational Physics Be Saved?
by andrepd on Monday December 17, 2018 @07:46PM
(#18703655)
I think this is very unfair.
>no one really knows what they're doing. Even Feynman said that no one understands QM
Quantum field theory makes possible the single most accurate predictions in all of science. Time and time again people whip out the Feynman (mis)quote to try to argue "oh we don't really know what's happening", but just cannot see why they think that way. Science is about finding observing reality and formulating descriptions with predictive power, and qft is objectively the best description any person has figured out so far.
>Modern QFT is like being given a laptop with an Excel spreadsheet that does some clever things, without having any idea what a processor is, what memory is, how a hard drive works, or why the case is that funny shape.
Again, preposterous. We know how qft works (we've come up with it, after all), and we know how to use it to make predictions and confirm them experimentally. If you mean know in a deeper, fuzzy sense, they maybe, maybe not.
>the fundamental problem - reconciling GR and QFT - can't be solved without a completely new mental model
>It's become a bit of a cargo-culty pursuit.
If you come up with a better idea than the current understanding, publish your findings and you will instantly become the most respected, popular, and influential physicist alive.
I will concede though that sadly funding is allocated more to "safer" avenues of research than novel ones. That's certainly a problem.
>no one really knows what they're doing. Even Feynman said that no one understands QM
Quantum field theory makes possible the single most accurate predictions in all of science. Time and time again people whip out the Feynman (mis)quote to try to argue "oh we don't really know what's happening", but just cannot see why they think that way. Science is about finding observing reality and formulating descriptions with predictive power, and qft is objectively the best description any person has figured out so far.
>Modern QFT is like being given a laptop with an Excel spreadsheet that does some clever things, without having any idea what a processor is, what memory is, how a hard drive works, or why the case is that funny shape.
Again, preposterous. We know how qft works (we've come up with it, after all), and we know how to use it to make predictions and confirm them experimentally. If you mean know in a deeper, fuzzy sense, they maybe, maybe not.
>the fundamental problem - reconciling GR and QFT - can't be solved without a completely new mental model
>It's become a bit of a cargo-culty pursuit.
If you come up with a better idea than the current understanding, publish your findings and you will instantly become the most respected, popular, and influential physicist alive.
I will concede though that sadly funding is allocated more to "safer" avenues of research than novel ones. That's certainly a problem.