1 |
On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be |
4 |
> able to answer is "why?". |
5 |
|
6 |
I think that's the crux of the problem with some current approaches to |
7 |
physics. Science does not answer the question "why?". That isn't its job. |
8 |
Its job is to explain show "this is how the world works." |
9 |
|
10 |
> Take gravity as an example. We [have] really good models for it, we can |
11 |
> predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but what are the |
12 |
> underlying mechanisms? We may never know. Einstein would say it's because |
13 |
> matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? We just |
14 |
> take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better than |
15 |
> anything else we've come up with so far. |
16 |
|
17 |
No, it's stronger than that. Einstein showed us how it works. The |
18 |
consequence of having a certain concentration of mass /here/ is to distort |
19 |
space-time just /so/ in the region of /here/. No mechanism is required |
20 |
because no process is operating. |
21 |
|
22 |
It seems to me that prodigious amounts of time, energy and money are being |
23 |
squandered on trying to find a graviton when no such beast is required to |
24 |
exist. Gravity, as Einstein taught us, is an emergent effect of mass in |
25 |
space-time. It isn't a force; it's an effect. Yet how many theorists and |
26 |
experimenters are thrashing themselves trying to find this imaginary |
27 |
particle which is supposed to moderate this imaginary force? |
28 |
|
29 |
Of course it's natural to wish to fill in the blanks in the standard models, |
30 |
but it's too easy to lose sight of what's beyond the end of one's nose. Just |
31 |
look at that other profligate waste of resources: string theory. It has |
32 |
beauty, but it does not correspond to reality in any practical way. So why |
33 |
are whole university faculties around the world staffed with nobody other |
34 |
than string theorists? |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Rgds |
38 |
Peter. |