The Search For Solutions

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

QM has led directly to the information age, yet it explains almost nothing. But it sure as hell predicts it.

[peter]

The situation re quantum theories contributions outlined by Z. are as I understood them to be also. Paul Davies in his book 'Other Worlds' said words to the effect that "Every time you turn on your TV and it works you confirm yet again the correctness of quantum theory" [arguing against myself; but cannot the same be said of Newtonian dynamics if you are considering cannonballs blasted at a castle wall, but never the less, the paradigm was overturned. Perhaps the working of this stuff is because it falls in a place where the approximate correctness - the 'utilility' if you like - of the quantum theory in this area is high even though the theory itself is flawed.]

[Zarathustra]

How is the theory flawed? It works perfectly well, ignoring gravity. But we have another theory for gravity. Who's to say that reality isn't complicated enough to need two theories?

All we need is a way to join these two into a single theory. That doesn't in itself show that either is flawed.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

We have made more steps towards understanding reality in the last 150 years than in the 1,500 years before that. It is a shame I won't be around in another hundred years because I would certainly like to remain up to speed on our understanding of physics...but who knows? Maybe I will be able to upload my mind into a computer before then or have sufficient cyborg replacements that my major organ systems don't fail.

If time and space are the same thing and we can teleport photons then why shouldn't be we be able to timeport them, as well? If quantum teleportation is possible then quantum time travel should be possible.

[peter]

Just to clarify the point I was attempting to make above, I think 'flawed' was the wrong word. Scientific 'models' can have utility even though they be wide of the mark in respect of how the world 'really is'. For example the 'cycles and epicycles' model of our solar system developed in order to explain retrograde motion of the planets while still keeping Earth in it's central position was actually very accurate as a tool for predicting planatary positions at any given time [and still would be today] even though totally wrong. Similarly is it not possible that the sucess of the quantum model in generating the technologies we mention above is of this type of 'utility', rather than a 'proof' of the theories veracity in respect of how the world 'really is'; is it not possible that a new 'paradigm' could yet superceed quantum [and/or relativity] but still leave the utility of either/both theories intact at the particular level they are currently being used at.

[Vraith]

How is the theory flawed? It works perfectly well, ignoring gravity. But we have another theory for gravity. Who's to say that reality isn't complicated enough to need two theories?

All we need is a way to join these two into a single theory. That doesn't in itself show that either is flawed.

Hee...I've said before that perhaps the reason that all the GUT's and TOE's have so far failed [or had properties that may...MAY...be forever beyond testing] is because unification doesn't exist...that at least some things are fundamentally different all the way down.

And previously, when I said Quantum hasn't done much, I meant it relatively...specifically, that it hasn't done much in comparison to the things that it almost certainly can/will do. And I meant that to be related to the fact that it is so damn hard to understand. We've got a bottle-neck of brain-power. There are ways around that bottle-neck...hell simple population growth helps. More people overall means more geniuses...and the previous stages [more information/communication and production tech] leverage the "might" of those geniuses.
In many ways, tech/physics/information has exploded our discoveries/advancement from our view...anyone can graph/chart it and see it.
OTOH, compared to the NEXT phase, this is an era of boredom and stagnation.

But I think quantum is a analogous to other previous things--in that it is incredibly successful and useful...better than anything else we've ever come up with AFAIK... but is still only a subset of real, and just a frame, not the firmament of the universe.
Take standard geometry...where would we be without it? But it is only a subset. AND, the real breakthroughs were when folk started changing the absolute roots that are necessary for it to be true. That didn't FALSIFY geometry, but it did subordinate and confine it.

We've got, and are going to get, a whole lotta cool things going on playing by the quantum rules...but that ain't a hill-o-beans compared to what we'll get done when we get beyond that frame and start playing WITH the rules.

The great danger is it also continues the progression that a smaller and smaller minority of people has even the slightest hope of understanding any of it.

[[that's why we need the machine-bio integration for everyone I keep wishing for in so many threads...so we don't all get lost]]

[peter]

Hee...I've said before that perhaps the reason that all the GUT's and TOE's have so far failed [or had properties that may...MAY...be forever beyond testing] is because unification doesn't exist...that at least some things are fundamentally different all the way down.

But this isn't the problem is it V? As I understand it the problem lies in that relativity and quantum mechanics are at root, mutually exclusive; by the very rules of math, if the one is correct the other has to be wrong [please don't ask me to back this up V. - I couldn't begin to, but I have read it said by much cleverer brains than mine]. If true this leaves us in a situation where either one, the other, or both are bound to be superceeded if progress is to be made. This is however not to gainsay that quantum and/or relativity still have much to offer in terms of practical understanng and resultant technological development in the near future, while the thoerists continue to 'do their thing'.

[I'm Murrin]

It's not that they're mutually exclusive. It's that one of them explains only gravity, and the other one explains everything except gravity. The problem is working out how gravity connects to everything else.

(TBH, I'm not sure on the science behind why we're sure all four fundamental forces were once unified.)

[Vraith]

Hee...I've said before that perhaps the reason that all the GUT's and TOE's have so far failed [or had properties that may...MAY...be forever beyond testing] is because unification doesn't exist...that at least some things are fundamentally different all the way down.

But this isn't the problem is it V? As I understand it the problem lies in that relativity and quantum mechanics are at root, mutually exclusive; by the very rules of math,

Well...we're way above my pay-grade, too.

I don't know that anyone knows where the entire problem really is.
We know that the maths we have describe various shown things very well...but can't be reconciled with each other. [[my understanding is there are at least three different families of results...infinities of answers we can't sort through, direct contradictions [similar to 1= -1], and inconsistencies with other known things [like protons decaying. Once upon a time, I saw somewhere that a fair number of GUTS could work...but only if protons decay...something we should/could see, but hadn't. I don't know the current status of that kind of stuff].
Is it just a limit of the current maths we have?
Or a limit of all possible maths/descriptions?
Or is there a physical, fundamental difference that isn't a shortcoming of the maths, but a feature/property of matter/energy? You have to describe it differently because it is, in fact, different?
I've read a lot of words addressing some or all of these...and they all reach a point where I literally can't even understand what the hell they're talking about anymore.

For some reason, I just have a preference/fondness for the idea that some things simply CAN't be unified. That there is more than one fundamental kind of thing, not just various condensations/flavors/expressions/viewpoints on a single kind of thing.

[Zarathustra]

I think Murrin is right. They're not mutually exclusive, until you try to apply one to the realm in which the other already explains. They are "scale-dependent" (my term), meaning that they each only work in their own frame of reference. So that implies science or reality is context-dependent ... but isn't that part of the point of relativity?? Who says reality must comprise a unified, logically coherent whole? Sure, we want it to, because that's how we define "knowledge." But maybe there are good reasons for reality to exhibit different properties at different scales. After all, the weak and strong nuclear forces only work at the scale of the nucleus, while electromagnetic and gravity works at astronomical distances. No one thinks this is a scandal. It's just how reality works.

Maybe I'm missing some of the nuance. I know that we've had success joining the other three forces into one theory by assuming greater energies at the beginning of the universe, and so we assume gravity should fall into place as well. But I think it's still possible to find a theory which does this, and yet not catastrophic if we don't.

[peter]

With concepts like 'force' and 'energy' am I right in believing we still can't say [or maybe just can't say] what they actually are, but only define them in terms of what they do?

[Zarathustra]

[Z - if it's not too intrusive, I would like to get a book to you that I know would blow you away. I've battered on about this one 'The Beginning of Infinity' by David Deutsch, many times in these pages. I wonder if you have an adress that you would be comfortable with me sending the book to. If so pm it over to me; if not, no sweat - this is the internet and I do understand peoples reservations about what information they disclose, but try to acess a copy anyway. If you like Kaku then Deutsch is a no brainer!]

A month later, I've managed to find a brand new copy at a half-price book store ... though I got it for 1/3 price: $10 in hard back. Woo-hoo!

I just started reading yesterday, and I'm very impressed. The discussion of inductivism, empiricism, and fallibilism gives me great hope that this author not only knows what he's talking about, but that he discusses some of the issues that I find most fascinating. In other words, you were certainly correct, Peter, in your prediction that I'd like the book. The discussion of what an explanation *is* is often missed by most popular books on science. It's more philosophy than science; in fact, I haven't covered territory like this--in this much detail--since my Philosophy of Science class in college when I read Popper, Kuhn, etc. directly.

[On a side note, I just wanted to say how pleasant it was to sit outside on a cool-ish summer day with my wife and son, all of us reading instead of viewing some sort of electronic device. My son picked out a book in the children's section that is a timeline of humanity's greatest inventions. Though he initially grumbled at my suggestion of "unplugging" to do something as lame as reading with his parents, as soon as he began reading, he couldn't put it down, and in fact repeatedly read aloud things from his book that he found amazing.]

[peter]

Exellent news Z! You will find much to think on in this book; Deutsch is occasionally a bit 'dry' to read, but he's a heavyweight thinker and I'm always massively impressed with his 'no limits' view as to the potential for progress via the scientific method.

Thats a great image you send of you and yours spending an afternoon 'unplugged' in the Sun with your books. Be carefull - it could be habit forming .