Re:Growing evidence that the universe is connected by giant ...
by mimixco on Thursday January 16, 2020 @09:07PM
(#22071209)
How many constants are required by the standard model to make the math work? Doesn't that admit something is unsolved? I think it's probably accurate to say we don't know much about subatomic physics and because of the scale/measurability problem might not ever. The same is true of the expansiveness of the universe.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Growing evidence that the universe is connected by giant ...
by wiml on Thursday January 16, 2020 @09:30PM
(#22071331)
Fewer than thirty, I think. Which is pretty good for a model that accurately encompasses so many phenomena.
Why do you say we don't know much about subatomic physics? In your view, how would things be different if we did know "much"?
Re:Growing evidence that the universe is connected by giant ...
by mimixco on Thursday January 16, 2020 @10:14PM
(#22071533)
There wouldn't be 30 constants. The math is being made to fit something without explaining it.
Re:Growing evidence that the universe is connected by giant ...
by _wzsf on Monday January 27, 2020 @02:10AM
(#22157404)
"Hurr durr, your physics isn't pretty enough and has too many coefficients to fit my childlike model of the universe. Clearly an approximation" - mimixco, 2020
Re:Growing evidence that the universe is connected by giant ...
by grizzles on Thursday January 16, 2020 @10:17PM
(#22071543)
We'd live in the Diamond Age. The molecular nanotechnology vision of the world would be true. Eg. we could create any material with the characteristics we wanted. Uncertainty wouldn't matter because there would be no compound uncertainty / decoherence. If some sub-process step in mnt fabrication failed because of inherent uncertainty, it could simply be repeated until it worked. We'd also understand how to build the tools to do this.