Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6851933" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes.&nbsp; We say that now, in hindsight.&nbsp; It turned out renormalization techniques, and quantum mechanics, were incredibly useful.&nbsp; But, there was a time before these tools were used, when Einstein was still saying that God doesn't play dice with the Universe.&nbsp; There was a time when QM was considered wacky, and many of the brightest felt it wouldn't go anywhere. My pofessors noted that there had been calls of the form, &quot;Look at those infinities!&nbsp; It's clearly non-physical!&nbsp; Don't worry about it!&quot;&nbsp; Aren't you glad they didn't listen to the naysayers?So, I'm not a big fan of pre-judging.&nbsp; The results will speak for themselves, eventually.I've cast shade on string theory, in the form of &quot;been at it for decades, still not much in terms of testable predictions,&quot; form*.&nbsp; I have never said they shouldn't have bothered ever trying the theories out, though - I only gripe that after so long, perhaps we should have some of these brilliant people looking down other avenues.&nbsp; I believe I am officially without preference on Dark Matter models, other than noting that certain forms seem to have been largely ruled out by observations.&nbsp; Again, I don't believe I've ever said folks shouldn't have investigated the various models.&nbsp; *Modern Quantum Mechanics can be seen to have gotten its start in 1925.&nbsp; Thirty five years later, in 1960, we had atomic bombs, solid state electronics, conventional superconductivity models, and nuclear power plants.&nbsp; The &quot;first superstring revolution&quot; was around 1980.&nbsp; And today?&nbsp; Not much that we can even test to tell if we've got the right general direction.&nbsp; Just sayin'.&nbsp; Yes, yes, I know a great deal about the energy levels we are dealing with, and how difficult the math and everything else about it is.&nbsp; Even knowing that, the point still remains in my mind.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6851933, member: 177"] Yes. We say that now, in hindsight. It turned out renormalization techniques, and quantum mechanics, were incredibly useful. But, there was a time before these tools were used, when Einstein was still saying that God doesn't play dice with the Universe. There was a time when QM was considered wacky, and many of the brightest felt it wouldn't go anywhere. My pofessors noted that there had been calls of the form, "Look at those infinities! It's clearly non-physical! Don't worry about it!" Aren't you glad they didn't listen to the naysayers? So, I'm not a big fan of pre-judging. The results will speak for themselves, eventually. I've cast shade on string theory, in the form of "been at it for decades, still not much in terms of testable predictions," form*. I have never said they shouldn't have bothered ever trying the theories out, though - I only gripe that after so long, perhaps we should have some of these brilliant people looking down other avenues. I believe I am officially without preference on Dark Matter models, other than noting that certain forms seem to have been largely ruled out by observations. Again, I don't believe I've ever said folks shouldn't have investigated the various models. *Modern Quantum Mechanics can be seen to have gotten its start in 1925. Thirty five years later, in 1960, we had atomic bombs, solid state electronics, conventional superconductivity models, and nuclear power plants. The "first superstring revolution" was around 1980. And today? Not much that we can even test to tell if we've got the right general direction. Just sayin'. Yes, yes, I know a great deal about the energy levels we are dealing with, and how difficult the math and everything else about it is. Even knowing that, the point still remains in my mind. [/QUOTE]

Verification