Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Exotic Matter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="freyar" data-source="post: 6851724" data-attributes="member: 40227"><p>I'm not sure precisely what you're saying, but renormalization techniques themselves are incredibly useful and have led to a really deep understanding of a number of subjects. But the other key difference between early quantum mechanics and what I'm talking about is (1) there was a clear need for something new in developing quantum mechanics and particle physics and (2) the development of quantum mechanics, etc, didn't start from the position of self-inconsistency and then crossing fingers that you can dial it back.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We've had some variation of this conversation before, and, you know, I think we're just coming at it from different perspectives. In a broad sense, I agree with you. It's just that scientists have to prioritize at the personal, institutional, national, and even international levels. Sometimes it just seems to me that there's too much of one direction vs another. Another issue is that I read (and referee) a lot of papers, and it's easy to find poor quality work that springs from the attitude of "well, I can just make things up without much regard to physical or mathematical principles." Let me put it this way: I don't have a problem with any specific direction of research as long as it could credibly be correct. There are unfortunately many instances of large swaths of literature that don't easily pass that test. That's all. And I don't think it should all be cut out, but I think sometimes the balance is sometimes affected more by sales pitches than scientific principles.</p><p></p><p>I might also note that there's been a fair amount of shade cast on subjects like particle dark matter research or string theory in public and even on EN World (not in a disrespectful way, just in terms of disagreements). Ironically, those types of research are based a lot more on growth of established principles.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, sure, the Morris-Thorne wormhole stuff was cheap and kind of a lark. But, for example, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope costs around $400 million and has a large goal to determine whether the universe's accelerated expansion is due to something like a cosmological constant or modified gravity. The thing is, most of the modified gravity theories are mathematically nonsensical or close to it. Now, the LSST is a great project with lots of other capabilities, so I like it a lot in general. But it's too bad that's pushed as a big sales pitch for it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="freyar, post: 6851724, member: 40227"] I'm not sure precisely what you're saying, but renormalization techniques themselves are incredibly useful and have led to a really deep understanding of a number of subjects. But the other key difference between early quantum mechanics and what I'm talking about is (1) there was a clear need for something new in developing quantum mechanics and particle physics and (2) the development of quantum mechanics, etc, didn't start from the position of self-inconsistency and then crossing fingers that you can dial it back. We've had some variation of this conversation before, and, you know, I think we're just coming at it from different perspectives. In a broad sense, I agree with you. It's just that scientists have to prioritize at the personal, institutional, national, and even international levels. Sometimes it just seems to me that there's too much of one direction vs another. Another issue is that I read (and referee) a lot of papers, and it's easy to find poor quality work that springs from the attitude of "well, I can just make things up without much regard to physical or mathematical principles." Let me put it this way: I don't have a problem with any specific direction of research as long as it could credibly be correct. There are unfortunately many instances of large swaths of literature that don't easily pass that test. That's all. And I don't think it should all be cut out, but I think sometimes the balance is sometimes affected more by sales pitches than scientific principles. I might also note that there's been a fair amount of shade cast on subjects like particle dark matter research or string theory in public and even on EN World (not in a disrespectful way, just in terms of disagreements). Ironically, those types of research are based a lot more on growth of established principles. Oh, sure, the Morris-Thorne wormhole stuff was cheap and kind of a lark. But, for example, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope costs around $400 million and has a large goal to determine whether the universe's accelerated expansion is due to something like a cosmological constant or modified gravity. The thing is, most of the modified gravity theories are mathematically nonsensical or close to it. Now, the LSST is a great project with lots of other capabilities, so I like it a lot in general. But it's too bad that's pushed as a big sales pitch for it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Exotic Matter
Top