Why are there so many unsolved problems in physics?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: SERC: Forests are growing faster, climate change appears to driving accelerated growth
Next: 'Marshall' is a disgusting troll
From: artful on 7 Feb 2010 23:32 On Feb 7, 12:31 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 4:06 am, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > > Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously > > wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we > > just overcomplicating things? > > ----------------- > you are right!! > and that list you saw > is only a very partial list !! > just a few days a go > i found an inner contradiction in QM > Y.Porat > -------------------- > > Y.P > ---------------- No .. you didn't .. you merely found that you didn't understand QM. There's a big difference.
From: BURT on 7 Feb 2010 23:40 On Feb 7, 8:32 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 12:31 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 4:06 am, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > > > Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously > > > wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we > > > just overcomplicating things? > > > ----------------- > > you are right!! > > and that list you saw > > is only a very partial list !! > > just a few days a go > > i found an inner contradiction in QM > > Y.Porat > > -------------------- > > > Y.P > > ---------------- > > No .. you didn't .. you merely found that you didn't understand QM. > There's a big difference.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Einstein has been proven right about Quantum Mechanics. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 8 Feb 2010 15:11 On Feb 4, 2:40 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 4 Feb, 12:20, "Cwatters" > > <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > > > Peer reviewed scientific papers are hidden away on subscription sites > > where as the cranks publish openly. > > And whose fault is that exactly? Scientists can't expect to act as > gatekeepers to knowledge, and then complain that too few people > understand their work. This isn't gatekeeping. It's publishing as a business. I get the feeling that you believe that all information should be free, and that any impediment to that is a sign of gatekeeping and obfuscation. This isn't the case. Information is available to subscribers to that information. There are ample ways to become better acquainted with that information. One is to subscribe to an educational environment, where you are paying for time and attention to have information laid out in an organized fashion to facilitate your free investigation. One is to purchase books, where the royalties on the book pay for the several years of time and effort that the authors took to present that information carefully, precisely, and plainly. One is to subscribe to journals, where there is rapid turnaround on research results so that you can get much broader access to the information base, not to mention quite a bit more current. Since all that requires extensive overhead, then it does cost some money to subscribe to it. > > > It would be interesting to know who the general public trusts most these > > days? Scientists or politicians? > > I dare say neither.
From: bert on 8 Feb 2010 17:10 On Feb 7, 11:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 8:32 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 12:31 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 4, 4:06 am, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > > > > Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously > > > > wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we > > > > just overcomplicating things? > > > > ----------------- > > > you are right!! > > > and that list you saw > > > is only a very partial list !! > > > just a few days a go > > > i found an inner contradiction in QM > > > Y.Porat > > > -------------------- > > > > Y.P > > > ---------------- > > > No .. you didn't .. you merely found that you didn't understand QM. > > There's a big difference.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Einstein has been proven right about Quantum Mechanics. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Reality is in Einstein's later years he realized how great a theory QM was.He even looked for gravity in the Q M realm.He knew GR did not fit where Q M ruled. TreBert
From: Ace0f_5pades on 8 Feb 2010 18:02
On Feb 6, 1:14 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > Yeah, here... http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.2815v1.pdf thanks 4 link. > The map is not the territory. That implies "the actual physical reality" as the final solution. Wow. that would be some revelation <attitude> > Neither QM or GR are the final answers - this > is well known, but apparently not by you. yeah, well.. Ok... but any final solution will be shaped from our understanding of QM, SR & GR. its a matter of course. > Did you know that quantum theory predicts the existence of a nonzero > background of vacuum energy? Not so ad-hoc now, is it? thats not enough though, it should also predict progress. I'm going to avoid that current great debate about time's applicability in physics. I'll simply say that in general, "simplification has to be justified"... and it may be the case that an entropy based progression scale is a far better picture of reality in the end anyway. |