And lo on Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:44:57 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

>   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?

Darren's is the best explanation, both theories start with different  
assumptions about the same thing; yet both are accurate. Problem two is  
when you get a theory A object behaving like a theory B object, because of  
problem 1 you can't mix-and-match the equations and all you get out of  
them is infinities (unless you're fine with physical infinities).

>   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.

Except both skyscrapers and car engines use the same material science and  
physics and start with the same assumptions, they're just applied in  
different ways. A car-engine designer can use the same science to build a  
skyscraper, he doesn't need to switch equations, just take some extra  
things into consideration.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message