Quote:
Originally Posted by shane.mcneil
Probably a bit off topic but I recently read this book. It is an interesting overview. From memory his big issue is that whichever theory prevails it can't be formulated against a fixed background, which GR and String include. (Please note: I really do not know what I am talking about  )
C ya.
Shane |
Hi Shane;
We had a thread about the latest on Smolin's work recently
here.
Whilst I wouldn't make any call one way or the other, I kind of like his approach.
In the context of this thread however, notice the language in the 'About the Book' description:
Quote:
|
The Holy Grail of modern physics is a theory of the universe that unites two seemingly opposing pillars of modern science
|
We need to recognise the religious imagery projected by this kind of language for what it is designed to do … in this case, to sell books and promote the illusion of conflict between QM and Classical Physics .. which does not appear, once one researches the topic in more depth. If there is, I'd like to know where, how and why this supposed 'conflict' occurs (as would others in this thread) … please don't feel that anyone other than someone highly skilled in theoretical physics would know how to do this, but I do challenge (and object somewhat) to the unsubstantiated connotation this view represents.
There's a lot more scientific value in Smolin's ideas, than is portrayed in the language used in this description.
As I have presented, the two theories, whilst having discontinuities and asymptotic behaviours when united, doesn't necessarily mean that nature is working this way.
Thanks for the heads-up … I'll bet its an interesting read.
Cheers