 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
Furl |
 |
|
 |
Rojo |
| Add to OnlyWire |
Whatever Wikipedia or other softwares say, the nick is renrutal, no caps, or just call me ren.
| Wikipedia:Babel | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Search user languages | ||||||||||||||||||||
My views on "Modern" Physics
Constants
First: I don't believe in "constants", and I mean measured constants like the Gravitational constant. Sorry, you can be the Einstein but I'd still would feel the need to kick your nuts to put some sense in your head. To me a real constant is Pi, it's well defined and won't ever change or be estimated, you can only measure it to be more accurate. c also deserves my respect, it's also very well defined.
Whoever, I do believe in the natural units even if they are based in some constants I don't believe. Oxymoronic? Not really:
My view on the measured constants is that the humanity only needs them as a placeholder to a true real constants and functions not yet devised.
I like the so called Planck units because they remove those placeholders in favor of simplicity, you don't need to measure them anymore since they become the base of the system.
Simplicity
It's simply the golden rule. Quoting myself:
"A Nobel prize of Physics winner's 2 year child is much closer to the theory of everything than his parent will ever be."
In other words, to me science's most basic rule is to follow the Occam's Razor.
Unhappily I've seen 10-dimensional theories linked to branes, strings, M-stuff, things so complex it takes a genius to harvest anything useful from there. Yet I believe the so called theory of everything will be the simplest theory ever devised, but all its interpretations will cover all the areas known or unknown to man.
If it's so simple, why isn't it obvious to all the genius we have today? Because everyone is used to think about complex things or even many complex things at the same time trying to cover the all the fields they know. It's so simple it's overlooked. And it takes a simple mind to think simply.
Another reason is because those genius minds are also used to think using the current physics theories we have today. They might be overlooking such a simple thing because they think it's wrong, when in reality their beliefs are wrong.
"But millions of experiences prove those theories are right!" No, they prove they are right within a certain context. I have yet to find a formula which will cover all the boundaries, things from plank lenght units to millions of light-years, theories that will work transparently in micro and macrouniverses.
Fundamentals are another that might be wrong, or maybe in better words, incomplete. Imagine how would a new, more complete definition of time would open a new set of possibilities. Or perhaps a different perspective, point of view; Wasn't the space-time static to us a bit more than a century ago?
Third and, perhaps, the most important reason, fear of going against decades and centuries of knowledge, fear of going against what very respectable thinkerers and proeminent members believe, fear of yourself, as you think you must be wrong because millions of other people are "right".
How can one find the simple truth if the mind is blurred with bias?
