Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
17. I think the only thing it means standing by itself
Fri Nov 13, 2015, 05:20 PM
Nov 2015

is that there is some fundamental deep, and as yet undiscovered, unity to the laws of physics.

If we don't destroy the planet first I think we are only three or maybe four Einsteins away from getting to the Bottom Of It All.

I am currently reading Lee Smolin's books "Time" and "The Trouble With Physics." Fascinating guy, and a director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Toronto. Brilliant and iconoclastic thinker. He's convinced that string theory is nothing but the mental masturbation of extremely bright people that may or more probably may never offer even a single idea that can be tested or make a prediction about to an observable phenomenon, meaning that ultimately it ain't real science. He makes a hell of a case for that argument. I've read a lot of the non-math writing by major string theorists and it is conceptually lovely and elegant, as its proponents claim. But that might only mean it is really good science fiction and nothing more.

Even more interesting is Smolin's contention that the full implications of Einstein's theories have not yet been worked/thought through, which he considers to be a major error. He's well worth a close read.

And then there's the whole fascinating topic of emergence....

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Way cool! nt valerief Nov 2015 #1
Um, the link is to a story from Politico about Bush* and Nineleven(TM) KamaAina Nov 2015 #2
here: annabanana Nov 2015 #4
I find this fascinating.. annabanana Nov 2015 #3
You can also find pi in the gaussian distribution. DetlefK Nov 2015 #5
The Wallis formula.... jberryhill Nov 2015 #6
thanks that clears it up saturnsring Nov 2015 #12
Well, I think anyone can see the pattern there jberryhill Nov 2015 #13
. . . hifiguy Nov 2015 #18
'... The emergence of the formula probably doesn't signal anything profound about quantum theory, struggle4progress Nov 2015 #7
Ayup. nt eppur_se_muova Nov 2015 #16
Jolly Good Show! Octafish Nov 2015 #8
TLDR. randome Nov 2015 #9
Aw how cute, one of your groupies showed up! Rex Nov 2015 #14
Lawnmowers and weed whackers!! FlatBaroque Nov 2015 #25
and eventually all sciences and subjects will just collapse back into each other MisterP Nov 2015 #10
That is mind-bendingly cool. hifiguy Nov 2015 #11
But is it just a coincidence or is there a deeper meaning to this discovery? Rex Nov 2015 #15
I think the only thing it means standing by itself hifiguy Nov 2015 #17
You might enjoy a recent (excellent) article from Nautilus on that very topic... drokhole Nov 2015 #33
Thanks! hifiguy Nov 2015 #36
great term G_j Nov 2015 #37
The electrons orbiting hydrogen atoms are in a sphere. jeff47 Nov 2015 #19
I thought hydrogen has only one electron. Rex Nov 2015 #20
Yep, they only have 1 electron. jeff47 Nov 2015 #21
I see, so elections do not orbit in a spherical pattern in other elements. Rex Nov 2015 #22
Some of them do, some of them don't. jeff47 Nov 2015 #23
Only in the ground state caraher Nov 2015 #26
Yes, I left out that complexity since the entire concept of orbitals was new. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2015 #32
This thread is one of the reasons I still love this place. Mnemosyne Nov 2015 #24
Agree completely. Rex Nov 2015 #30
And the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know. nt Mnemosyne Nov 2015 #34
I gave up thinking I knew anything long ago. Rex Nov 2015 #35
I hear ya'! Damnedable runaway brain though... nt Mnemosyne Nov 2015 #38
Kick! These are awesome threads! nt Quackers Nov 2015 #27
May I be the first to point out that this may simply be a product of bored reality programmers. byronius Nov 2015 #28
The reasoning for this is somewhat circular. Maedhros Nov 2015 #29
Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast Nov 2015 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A classic formula for pi ...»Reply #17