Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

iai.tv

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 326 posts

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#201

Post by 77pt77 »

cletus wrote: post #164

Does anyone else feel like the abstractions and models in physics have gone passed the point where the casual outsider (even a technically and scientifically minded one) can no longer intuitively understand it? Because that's how I feel. There are so many things I just don't understand now like: 1. I originally thought the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle was a natural consequence of using particles (photos) for meas…

1. Blame stupid pop-sci books. Anyone reading an actual QM book will know it's an intrinsic property.

2. again pop-sci books.

3. You and anyone not blinded by non-scientific factors...

6. The math we use for those calculations is adhoc bullshit and no one has been able to place it in a solid foundation.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#203

Post by konschubert »

j1vms wrote: post #137

The role of this "era" may be in reformulating quantum physics and, separately, general relativity in new ways that make the ideas more accessible to more people, and earlier in their lives. The goal could be to make of modern physics... the new classical physics. That is, we start to let go the crutches we still teach because it is thought that day-to-day life is more readily explained by Newtonian physics. We are n…

Also, let’s agree on a consistent interpretation of quantum theory.

As long as we keep teaching the reckless hand-waving that is the Kopenhagen interpretation, we will keep confusing clear-thinking students.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#204

Post by Nition »

jxy wrote: post #126
ISL wrote: post #86

I strongly disagree that the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years. We have been looking really hard for answers to persistent questions. While we have not found affirmative answers, physicists have systematically ruled out option after option after option. We have not yet discovered a unified-theory-of-everything, but we know a whole lot more about what that theory is not . Furthermore, the past 40…

「三十輻，共一轂，當其無，有車之用。埏埴以為器，當其無，有器之用。鑿戶牖以為室，當其無，有室之用。故有之以為利，無之以為用。」

Google Translate on this fails almost completely but somehow turns it into a critique on the Internet Of Things:

Thirty spokes, there is a hub. When it is free, it is used for cars. I think it is a device, when it is free, it is used for devices. Profit, useless.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#206

Post by pdonis »

danharaj wrote: post #179
pdonis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Standard Model assumes neutrinos don't have mass No, it doesn't. The original Standard Model from the 1970s did, but then neutrino masses were discovered and the Standard Model was modified to include them.

By which mechanism do neutrinos gain their mass?

AFAIK the seesaw mechanism is the one currently used to model neutrinos in the Standard Model.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#207

Post by tartoran »

Nition wrote: post #204
jxy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

「三十輻，共一轂，當其無，有車之用。埏埴以為器，當其無，有器之用。鑿戶牖以為室，當其無，有室之用。故有之以為利，無之以為用。」

Google Translate on this fails almost completely but somehow turns it into a critique on the Internet Of Things: Thirty spokes, there is a hub. When it is free, it is used for cars. I think it is a device, when it is free, it is used for devices. Profit, useless.

I get something like this from google translate: Thirty spokes, a total of one hub, when it is not available, there is a car. I think that when there is no device, there is a use for it. The chisel owner thinks that when there is no room, there is room. Therefore, it is good to use it, but not to use it. "

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#208

Post by cygx »

konschubert wrote: post #202

This is my pet topic, but: How can we expect to make progress in our theories if we haven’t even agreed on a consistent interpretation of today’s quantum theory?

Because explanatory stories aren't strictly necessary: While it certainly helps if we have them available because they allow us to reason intuitively, the hallmark of science is the predictive model.

In contrast, a bunch of explanatory stories lacking an underlying predictive model is what we call pseudo-science.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#209

Post by bronlund »

Anon84 wrote: post #109
bronlund wrote: post #107

There will be no real progress before everyone agrees to unfuck everything Einstein fucked up.

Such as?

The Aether.

Einstein isn't alone though, there are others. Like how Heaviside ruined Maxwells original 20 equations. And there aren't really that many explanations to how this came about. It could be a result of stupidity of course - or it could be that someone for some reason maybe didn't want everyone to know.

Imagine if you could modulate electromagnetic scalar waves to in-phase at a specific point in space. Someone could put a quad of energy confined to your bedroom and no one could tell where it came from. It would make the Hiroshima bomb sound like a firecracker and all you need is a lot of electricity and antennas. Big antennas though.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#210

Post by kilroy123 »

scottlocklin wrote: post #85
strangescript wrote: post #47

I have become a bit more pessimistic about it the state of discovery. Things have slowed despite the current generation having abundant access to overwhelming compute power and the internet, things that did not exist even 30 years ago. There has never been a better time to collaborate or prove out theoretical models, yet there has been a decrease in needle moving discoveries.

Maybe the internet is an impediment to doing science. It certainly seems to shorten people's attention spans.

I too worry this might be a big issue holding us all back. As well as poor diet and lack of proper exercise.
Post reply on HN