POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything : Re: An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything Server Time
15 Nov 2024 01:16:01 EST (-0500)
  Re: An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything  
From: andrel
Date: 17 Nov 2007 15:46:13
Message: <473F5422.5060707@hotmail.com>
Warp wrote:
>   One thing I have never really understood is why they are so vehemently
> trying to find a "unified theory of everything".
> 
>   We have models which describe how things work at quantum scale, and we
> have models which describe how things work at macroscale (including high
> speeds and high masses). Neither model describes well the other, but why
> is this such a big deal? Why can't we have two (or more) models at the
> same time?
Because there is a medium scale and mixed scales?
For example one of the things we cannot describe at the moment (IIRC) is 
the behaviour of one electron in a big gravitational field e.g. close to 
a black hole. You need both quantum mechanics and relativity for that.
One of the jokes of one of my quantum teachers was that you can see the
progress of science in what systems of particles you can solve. In 
newtonian physics the three body system is unsolvable. Then with general 
relativity the 2 body problem becomes analytically unsolvable. With the 
addition of quantum mechanics the behaviour of a single particle is 
beyond reach (see above) and nowadays we cannot even solve the vacuum 
anymore.

> 
>   This may be a far-fetched analogy, but we have theories and models of
> how car engines should be built, and we have theories and models of how
> skyscrapers should be built. Neither model can be used to describe the
> other situation, but so what? That doesn't cause any problems. If you
> are building a car engine, use the car engine model. If you are building
> a skyscraper, use the skyscraper model. Where's the problem? Why would
> we even need a "unified model" which describes both car engines and
> skyscrapers at the same time? There's no need, and it would only completely
> unnecessarily complicate things.
Unless you want to build a movable skyscraper. Trust me, someone will 
one day.

> 
>   Is it just a question of coolness, or is there some practical issue
> in play here?
> 
Whether there is a practical advantage will only show after unification. 
But of course the main problem is that it is bloody annoying at parties.


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.