Started conversation Feb 10, 2002
Good article...intuitively I always feel that this theory is too complicated...if there are 'fundamental' particles which never exist alone ie. quarks...then how can they be fundamental. Indeed how can they be said to be a particle...what do we mean by this term? I would sugest that what we are observing is a series of interactions which appear as discrete particles but actually demonstrate an interrelatedness which like chckens and eggs cannot exist without each other. Mind you its 30 years since I studied this stuff...
Posted Feb 10, 2002
Yes, it evokes an uneasy feeling that it's all too complicated.
What would William of Occam (he of the razor) think of modern physics?
Posted Feb 12, 2002
We assume that truth is elegant and simple....is this justified? I don't know....but quantum mechanics has always seemed to be a kind of working hypothesis rather then the truth.
Posted Dec 19, 2002
good name...grendhal grendhal grendhal grendhal grendhal
Anyway, quantum is a hypothesis in the same way that Newton's stuff is a hypothesis - they both work extremely well within their limits, but break down outside them. That doesn't invalidate either, just says they have their limits.
Posted May 10, 2003
i wopuld like to know how correct prof.BRIANE GREENE"s STRING THEORY is.
Complain about this post