Marcus Aurelius: nmrsnr: I'm cautiously optimistic that this thing will actually lead to new ways of thinking about/understanding/teaching particle physics, similar to how Feynman diagrams simplified and made abstract concepts more concrete.Theoretical physicists are more conservative and resistant to change than any known force in the universe.
chumboobler: I am still in the anti "time" camp. I think it should be decay of solvency. Time is a fictional thing that man made up to track things. Time exists, but not as time as we know it. It is all about decay of bonds in molecules and those vary wildly depending on the molecule involved...... If we give up time as an absolute, we will progress. It varies greatly depending on what and where you are.
syrynxx: I thought there was someone who had a geometrical solution to the particle model long ago. It doesn't mean this is a bad thing; I'd rather see a good idea rehashed every six months. Like the Eightfold Path, the Standard Model has models slapped on to it, but nobody knows why. Experimental physicists care about 'how' before 'why', and I never did like the concept of 'renormalizing infinities'. "Oh, the math says this integral goes to infinity. But we know the probability can't be more than 100% so we'll just spackle over the holes in the mathematics."
DerAppie: Didn't we already have a thread or two about this?
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Aug 20 2017 21:21:15
Runtime: 0.298 sec (297 ms)