Why are half these threads about existent/non existent God/Gilgamesh, "omg divide by 0", ".999... =/= 1", racism, and ID/evolution? Props to the real math threads every once in a while.
Let's get back to real /sci/.
Poll: Given that quantum mechanics and general relativity are mutually exclusive, which one is right?
I think it all comes down to proving whether God is real or isn't. Though, when you consider the evidence, it's obvious God is real. Who else could have created everything but an omnipotent being? Science is a waste of time because we already know the Holy Truth in our hearts.
I totally agree with this guy. Neither cover all fields of reality so going about on one alone would result in a warped, incomplete perception of reality.
In my opinion however, cosmogony (albeit largely undefined) should cover the gaps left by the ones you listed. Thus bestowing man with a more complete view of reality.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 6:50 ID:wcm/2HKd
>Given that quantum mechanics and general relativity are mutually exclusive
They already are in a sense that you never consider both at the same time.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 12:06 ID:lVlbnQyr
>>6 I totally agree with this guy.
It's not a matter of opinion.
Neither cover all fields of reality so going about on one alone would result in a warped, incomplete perception of reality.
More precisely, neither makes correct predictions at the high-speed quantum level. It's not about "perceptions of reality", it just doesn't work; we don't observe what either theory says we should.
In my opinion however, cosmogony (albeit largely undefined) should cover the gaps left by the ones you listed. Thus bestowing man with a more complete view of reality.
Right now cosmogony is pseudoscience and philosophy. When a consistent theory of quantum gravity comes around, these are the people who will jump at it and claim it proves all their crackpot theories.
They already are in a sense that you never consider both at the same time.
What? That's nonsense. OP was correct. We don't choose not to consider both. We WANT to be able to consider both at the same time, but we can't combine them. You get equations that don't make sense, like dividing by zero.
>>3
Unless there are sharp transitions from QM -> GR, your statement is impossible. Perhaps you meant to say "Within their range of applicability, both are _almost_ right. In the high-speed quantum range, both are wrong."
I probably should have asked which of the two was closer to being right. If the standard model were a complete description of the universe (which it isn't), then QM is more accurate, since the standard model is an offshoot of QM, while GR is an unrelated tangent.
>>8
What definition of cosmogony are you referring to? The wikipedia definition simply calls it "Cosmogony is any theory concerning the coming into existence or origin of the universe, or an origin belief about how reality came to be", which is vague and could include pretty much anything.
i don't understand why GR and QED can't both be models that we apply on a case-by-case basis. physiscists do it all the time when they don't have the complete picture. wave/particle duality? nuclear physics?
physicists often hodge-podge models together in order to explain things. i don't see why the same can't be done with GR and QED, since both have been observed.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 9:47 ID:2WCCZ9Ud
>>13 i don't understand why GR and QED can't both be models that we apply on a case-by-case basis.
They are. In fact that's exactly what they are.
physicists often hodge-podge models together in order to explain things. i don't see why the same can't be done with GR and QED, since both have been observed.
1. "Hodge-podge" GR and QM together;
2. Collect Nobel prize.
Sounds simple enough? SPOILERS: The "??" is hidden in #1.
Name:
4tran2007-07-22 1:27 ID:cyw9NvTS
>>13
As you said it yourself, we don't have the complete picture. That's exactly the whole point of this research: what is the complete picture?