Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
I think it's quite the opposite more like the tall poppy syndrome at work. If a theory is healthy why challenge it in the first place?
|
There could be an element of tall poppy syndrome there... wouldn't you like to be the one who worked out how to unify GR and QM?
I have to agree with Carl's response, but to add my own spin... if you don't challenge ideas/hypotheses/theories then they are simply dogma. And that is not healthy science!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
It's like the engineering maxim if ain't broken then don't fix it.
|
I have to disagree!
As an engineer, I see much value in "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" for all sorts of reasons.
But that is engineering and economics, and not pure science.
GR is broken, like it or not: it isn't compatible with the other similarly successful theory, Quantum Mechanics.
Maybe, this solution/modification will work.
Time and good application of the scientific method will tell.
It is a novel solution worthy of exploration, especially if it can deal with the 2 great anomalies of our time: dark matter and dark energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
Despite the title and first paragraph which contradicts the main body of the article, this new gravitational theory doesn't actually challenge GR. Its accepts GR is applicable for low energy scales which is the current state of the Universe.
|
Yeah, well as Carl said, there is some journalistic licence being applied there. In the fullness of time, if the actual model doesn't work, it doesn't work... no biggie. That's just how science works.
Al.