I'm actually pretty optimistic that we'll solve this; it's hard to combine the insights of quantum theory and general relativity, but that very difficulty is helpful, because it provides a strong constraint in a situation where we don't have enough experiments. (continued)
-
-
Replying to @johncarlosbaez @MathPrinceps and
All attempts to combine quantum theory and general relativity so far suffer from "internal" problems - problems you can detect without doing experiments. But there are also experimental puzzles that want explanations, like "dark matter" (or whatever is). (continued)
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @johncarlosbaez @MathPrinceps and
So, there are plenty of angles to work. But we may need 2 or 3 new ideas that only work well when combined. So, it could take decades. I quit working on quantum gravity because I wanted to do some things that would succeed in my lifetime. But in the long run I'm optimistic.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
In the long run, I'm cautiously pessimistic. The problems here are now clear enough to identify as fundamental; we'll need something vastly more than ingenuity and optimism to get past them. And, worst of all, it seems very doubtful whether we'll ever know if we've got it right.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The existing theories of quantum gravity are so bad that it's very easy for me to imagine that someday people will come up with a vastly better one... and we'll all say "Duh! Why didn't anyone think of that sooner?"
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @johncarlosbaez @MathPrinceps and
We are SO constrained by the scient. authorities of the "fathers" of EM, the quantum, and gravitation, that we don't investigate critically enough the phys-math foundations of their theories. Having so many fundamental questions unanswered, the times are ripe to do it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisPapavasili @johncarlosbaez and
I wonder about that too. Is there an account of the standard model suitable for a mathematically trained non-expert that doesn't just say what it is but also gives you a good idea of why it was inevitable, given the experimental data, that we would come up with it?
5 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @wtgowers @ChrisPapavasili and
@wtgowers - I suggest the historical introductions to physics here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/books.html … The information in these not sufficient for what you want, but it's necessary (and fascinating).2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @johncarlosbaez @wtgowers and
To this I would only add: read Mackey, read Mackey, he is the master of us all. For anyone who longs for a mathematical understanding of physics, Mackey's pellucid expositions are inestimably precious. Sternberg is also good, but Mackey is a deity.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @wtgowers and
When I was a grad student around 1987, George Mackey was one of the few living mathematical physicists that my thesis advisor, Irving Segal, actually respected. (He was a very critical fellow.) And thus I got to meet him.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
It was at about this same time (I was a grad student then as well) that I enjoyed several lengthy telephone conversations with Mackey. I was struck by how closely his spoken discourse resembled his writings: he was clear, helpful, comprehensive, and penetrating. Also very nice.
-
-
Replying to @MathPrinceps @johncarlosbaez and
Alas, I was never so fortunate as actually to meet Mackey (and I wept when I learned of his passing; we shall not soon see his like again.) I like to think that his personal influence is present in Sternberg's many superb contributions to the mathematical explication of physics.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @wtgowers and
They were both at Harvard so they probably talked a bunch at some point. I never saw them do it, but I would mainly see them when they came to MIT. Sternberg would mainly come there to talk to Guillemin.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.