reflection on glaringly deficiencies of physics

Nov 27, 2007 02:32

One alarming fact about physics is the lack of Grand Unification Theory (GUT) that explains everything. That is the holy grail of physics. Physics has long been a symbol of man's effort at rational thought. The mission was to understand, and predict God's system. I was fascinated with this prospect. I thought that to know how God's system works is ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 19

shanoyu November 27 2007, 13:15:52 UTC
Well, fuck the grand unification theory. The inventions of nuclear weapons, x-rays, radar, and pretty much everything else that makes society work well are products of a less than perfect model, so it works well enough for me.

I mean yeah, a Grand Unification Theory is probably out of reach because it seems doubtful that we'd ever be able to observe all the relevant parts of the universe that we want to observe at any given time much less have the brains to puzzle it out.

I mean comon, matter bends space and time? I mean, it sounds like a neat thing to say but from a purely aesthetic point of view, well, it seems kind of lame.

The big problem I have with physics is that it's just so gosh darn ugly once you go past mechanical physics and into the parts of the universe that mankind never had the natural ability to observe.

(Of course, I recognize that it's only ugly because of our unfamiliarity with it, but nevertheless, ew.)

Reply

ragnus November 27 2007, 18:44:09 UTC
dude, the math is really frigging ugly. maybe 5% of it is beautiful, but the other 95% is just hammering out equations with strange integrals etc.

Reply

eigenvalue November 27 2007, 22:34:30 UTC
you have no idea what you're talking about. and you're just blabbering about random stuff.

I mean yeah, a Grand Unification Theory is probably out of reach because it seems doubtful that we'd ever be able to observe all the relevant parts of the universe that we want to observe at any given time much less have the brains to puzzle it out.

how do you know all of this? answer: you don't. i'm sure that in the 1700s most people would have found it doubtful that in 200 years we'd be able to observe things at an atomic scale.

I mean comon, matter bends space and time? I mean, it sounds like a neat thing to say but from a purely aesthetic point of view, well, it seems kind of lame.

how is that unaesthetic? also, what do aesthetics have to do with physics and science? the laws are what they are. they're there regardless of whether you think they're pretty or not. they're there regardless of whether you think they're lame or not. and actually there are plenty of people who do think that the laws are beautiful.

Reply

shanoyu November 28 2007, 03:50:16 UTC
Ok. So I don't know that and was merely making a guess for shits/giggles/small talk. I'm personally not terribly worried about Academia throwing up their arms in frustration because of my post on live journal, but you can tell them I said to keep on trucking ( ... )

Reply


eigenvalue November 27 2007, 22:06:29 UTC
Then we observed, to much disappointment, that light travels at the same speed in all inertial frames.

i wouldn't call this disappointing. it is/was surprising, but not disappointing. also, i don't really know the history of physics -- exactly when and how was this observed?

Because it's a holy mission to understand the universe in man-made theories, it symbolizes the rise of western civilization.

why do you say this?

But the frustrating lack of progress in obtaining the Grand Unification Theory should casts seriously doubt on our optimism. It's perhaps important to ponder the limit of physics.these things take time. if such a theory really exists, you can't reasonably expect it to be easy to discover. you certainly can't reasonably expect mankind to be able to discover it in, say, less than 100 years ( ... )

Reply

ragnus November 28 2007, 07:52:27 UTC
Heh i get what you're saying about pushing the limit. looks like you still haven't burnt out like me. You gotta use the passion you have now to push as hard as you can. Because you never know when that passion is going to die. It's not coincidence that most mathematicians achieve their pinnecle around 26-30 or so. You still got a few years left.

Reply

ragnus November 28 2007, 07:58:05 UTC
Dood in case if you ever have second thoughts on getting a math phd. Get a masters and you will definitely have a job with my boss. He told me specifically to watch out for talents here.

Reply

threadkilla November 29 2007, 20:22:39 UTC
ROFL!

Reply


esizzle December 20 2007, 02:19:05 UTC
if u're interested in the "theory of everything" then u'll find this a pretty cool lecture. It's about string theory, black holes, einstein, contradictions.. and the unified theory. fascinating i think.
http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/sst/video/sst1_1.html

Reply


Leave a comment

Up