What Physicists Have Been Missing /BY SABINE HOSSENFELDER/

[israel sadovnik]

What Physicists Have Been Missing
An exciting new theory reconciles gravity and quantum physics. I think it’s wrong. But I may be too.
BY SABINE HOSSENFELDER February 2, 2024
-------
But today, the foundations of physics are a sleepy place. We’re still chewing on the same problems that we had a century ago—and all that chewing hasn’t made them any more digestible. What is dark matter? What does quantum mechanics really mean? And why does gravity refuse to cooperate with quantum physics? These are problems that, when I can’t sleep, I like to think have already kept Einstein up at night.
--------
https://nautil.us/what-physicists-have-been-missing-506607/
------
Problems:
1- What is “quantum gravity"?
/Gravity is an extremely weak force on small scales compared to the EM forces./
2- What is an electron?
To a request to explain what an electron really is supposed to be we can only answer, “It is part of the A B C of physics”. /Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington/
3- Is it possible to cure “incurable infinities”?
'' So we really do not know exactly what it is that we are assuming that gives us the difficulty producing infinities. A nice problem ! However, it turns out that it is possible to sweep the infinities under the rug , by a certain crude skill , and temporarily we are able to keep on calculating. '' / Richard Feynman/
-------.

[jillery]

I like the questions she mentions, but I can think of three questions
recently raised that might also pique the interest of someone who is
tired of merely masticating:

1. Where did all the anti-matter go?

2. How to resolve the significant difference in the age of the
Universe calculated from supernovae and from CMB.

3. How did all those galaxies discovered by JWST form so soon after
the Big Bang?

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[erik simpson]

All of the above questions are what's keeping so many cosmologists and
physicists busy. Otherwise, they'd be dealing with the multiverse(s).
Good thing, IMHO.

[israel sadovnik]

On Tuesday 6 February 2024 at 17:03:02 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 22:05:57 -0800 (PST), israel sadovnik
> <israels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >What Physicists Have Been Missing
> >An exciting new theory reconciles gravity and quantum physics. I think it’s wrong. But I may be too.
> >BY SABINE HOSSENFELDER February 2, 2024
> >-------
> >But today, the foundations of physics are a sleepy place. We’re still chewing on the same problems that we had a century ago—and all that chewing hasn’t made them any more digestible. What is dark matter? What does quantum mechanics really mean? And why does gravity refuse to cooperate with quantum physics? These are problems that, when I can’t sleep, I like to think have already kept Einstein up at night.
> >--------
> >https://nautil.us/what-physicists-have-been-missing-506607/
> >------
> >Problems:
> >1- What is “quantum gravity"?
> >/Gravity is an extremely weak force on small scales compared to the EM forces./
> >2- What is an electron?
> >To a request to explain what an electron really is supposed to be we can only answer, “It is part of the A B C of physics”. /Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington/
> >3- Is it possible to cure “incurable infinities”?
> >'' So we really do not know exactly what it is that we are assuming that gives us the difficulty producing infinities. A nice problem ! However, it turns out that it is possible to sweep the infinities under the rug , by a certain crude skill , and temporarily we are able to keep on calculating. '' / Richard Feynman/
> >-------.
> I like the questions she mentions, but I can think of three questions
> recently raised that might also pique the interest of someone who is
> tired of merely masticating:
>
> 1. Where did all the anti-matter go?

-------
The interaction of matter-antimatter was described by Dirac as E=±MC²
(matter-antimatter - two sides of the same “coin”).
--------

[J. J. Lodder]

israel sadovnik <israels...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What Physicists Have Been Missing
> An exciting new theory reconciles gravity and quantum physics. I think
> it's wrong. But I may be too.
>
> BY SABINE HOSSENFELDER February 2, 2024
> -------
> But today, the foundations of physics are a sleepy place. We're still
> chewing on the same problems that we had a century ago—and all that
> chewing hasn't made them any more digestible. What is dark matter? What
> does quantum mechanics really mean? And why does gravity refuse to
> cooperate with quantum physics? These are problems that, when I can't
> sleep, I like to think have already kept Einstein up at night.

Sure, Sabine is good at talking,
but that's about the only thing she is good at.
Don't expect solutions coming from her.

What I have been missing would have been a more honest title,
(guess she still claims to be a physicist herself)

Jan

[israel sadovnik]

------
Worriment in the situation in physics was described even earlier (in 2006)
by Lee Smolin in his book “The trouble with Physics”:
‘’ . . . at least one big idea is missing. How do we find that missing idea?’’
/ Page 308. by Lee Smolin /
------

[Öö Tiib]

There are really not much to worry. We do not understand physics. When
I was kid in school then half of class had difficulty to understand most
elementary physics; when my kids went to school the situation was same.
We are slow, dim-witted, easily distracted and short-lived. It is normal that
no one understands some higher part of physics. It is surprise that we
have figured out so lot of it.

[J. J. Lodder]

The problem is that fundamental physics is failing, as a science.
If Imre Lakatos were still around he would no doubt have said
that string theory, and fundamental physics in general,
has turned into a degenerating research program, (in his sense)

Stagnation in science is a sign of deep trouble,
You don't need Sabine to see that,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

> by Lee Smolin in his book "The trouble with Physics":
> '' ... at least one big idea is missing. How do we find that missing idea?''

> / Page 308. by Lee Smolin /

Sure, Sabine isn't as original as she would like to be.
The trouble was already brewing long before Smolin
voiced it in a popular book.

String theory has failed to deliver the goods,
and nobody has any idea what to do next,

Jan

[israel sadovnik]

On Wednesday 7 February 2024 at 10:38:02 UTC+2, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Wednesday 7 February 2024 at 08:08:02 UTC+2, israel sadovnik wrote:
> > On Wednesday 7 February 2024 at 00:28:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > israel sadovnik <israels...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What Physicists Have Been Missing

-----

> > > Sure, Sabine is good at talking,
> > > but that's about the only thing she is good at.
> > > Don't expect solutions coming from her.
> > >
> > > What I have been missing would have been a more honest title,
> > > (guess she still claims to be a physicist herself)
> > >
> > > Jan
> > ------
> > Worriment in the situation in physics was described even earlier (in 2006)
> > by Lee Smolin in his book “The trouble with Physics”:
> > ‘’ . . . at least one big idea is missing. How do we find that missing idea?’’
> > / Page 308. by Lee Smolin /
> > ------
> There are really not much to worry. We do not understand physics. When
> I was kid in school then half of class had difficulty to understand most
> elementary physics; when my kids went to school the situation was same.
> We are slow, dim-witted, easily distracted and short-lived. It is normal that
> no one understands some higher part of physics. It is surprise that we
> have figured out so lot of it.

--------
If you are right, then why are modern physicists worried?
''If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it''
/ John Wheeler /
"Nobody understands quantum mechanics and that's a problem".
/Sean Carroll/
''Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense''
/Roger Penrose/
"Feynman once said, 'Science is imagination in a straitjacket.' It is ironic that in the case
of quantum mechanics, the people without the straitjackets are generally the nuts."
/Lawrence M. Krauss/
"Physics is really figuring out how to discover new things that are counterintuitive,
like quantum mechanics. It's really counterintuitive."
/Elon Musk/
---------------------

[israel sadovnik]

----
Lee Smolin: String theory is still wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyV_5aWa9zU
--------

[jillery]

Dealing with the multiverse gives a whole new meaning to "stacking the
deck".

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:45:26 -0800 (PST), israel sadovnik

My understanding is the creation of matter requires the creation of an
equal amount of anti-matter. We see lots of matter all around, but
almost no anti-matter. Your Dirac equation doesn't help.

[erik simpson]

One coud imagine from some of the recent posts of put-downs of quantum
mechanics, etc. that our current physics theory is a shambles. This
isn't the case. The "Standard Model" (quantum chromodynamics) makes
predictions of an accuracy exceeding that of celestial mechanics, which
for a long time was the gold standard of accuracy. That there are
unanswered problems (and always will be), doesn't mean that the theory
is wrong, just incomplete. The next important advances may come from
another Newton or Einstein, or perhaps just accumulated smaller steps by
many, but important new theories must still retain the current level of
accuracy. This puts severe restrictions on things like MOND, or
cosmology that throws out zero divergence of the stress-energy tensor.

[J. J. Lodder]

> >>E=±MC? (matter-antimatter - two sides of the same "coin"). --------

> >
> >
> > My understanding is the creation of matter requires the creation of an
> > equal amount of anti-matter. We see lots of matter all around, but
> > almost no anti-matter. Your Dirac equation doesn't help.
> >
> > --
> > To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
> >
> One coud imagine from some of the recent posts of put-downs of quantum

> mechanics, etc. thatour current physics theory is a shambles. This
> isn't the case.

No, of course not. Our understanding is incredibly good and complete
over an enormous range of phenomena and length/energy/time scales.

> The "Standard Model" (quantum chromodynamics) makes
> predictions of an accuracy exceeding that of celestial mechanics, which
> for a long time was the gold standard of accuracy.

It would seem that you have not kept up with celestial mechanics.
(or with the precision revolution in general)

> That there are unanswered problems (and always will be), doesn't mean that
> the theory is wrong, just incomplete.

Right. The problem isn't incompleteness,
it is stagnation of the advance, at the fundamental level.

> The next important advances may come from another Newton or Einstein, or
> perhaps just accumulated smaller steps by many, but important new theories
> must still retain the current level of accuracy.

Yes, who knows.

Jan

[jillery]

Eggzactly.