Remix.run Logo
Animats 2 hours ago

Einstein spent his later career trying to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. He failed. So has everyone after him. It's not about Einstein being old. It's that it's a really hard problem.

the__alchemist 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is my understanding as well. What the article described has been cannon for almost a century, but it may not be an accurate representation, and we still don't have the answers to address Einsteins' concerns.

(Article quote in question: "But toward the tail end of Einstein’s life, he argued strenuously against the concepts undergirding the emerging field of quantum mechanics, the ideas that are shaking up physics yet again and may lay bare even more of our universe’s mysteries.")

jampekka 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

TFA also refers to just Einstein's 1905 papers. He published general relativity 10 years later. And after GE he contributed e.g. stimulated emission, Bose-Einstein statistics, Einstein-de Sitter cosmological model and the EPR paradox, among lots of other stuff.

Also the claim "toward the tail end of Einstein’s life, he argued strenuously against the concepts undergirding the emerging field of quantum mechanics" downplays that Einstein was pivotal in emerging the field in the first place.

MathMonkeyMan 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Seeing what came later with gauge theories and more speculative stuff like loop quantum gravity, you can't blame Einstein for thinking that the theory of everything might take the form of a set of field equations for a connection. Math was just too hard, and the answer probably doesn't look like that after all.

hunterpayne 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"downplays that Einstein was pivotal in emerging the field in the first place."

Indeed, its a pretty easy case to make the Einstein has more to do with QM as it currently exists than Bohr does. The major interesting work on QM after the 1960s or so is entirely dependent upon Einstein's work on QM and locality. The entire narrative in fact comes from Bohr's hissy fit after Einstein pointed out that QM is non-local and that seems very wrong.

renox 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes and being 'opposed' to QM contributed to expose the 'spooky action at distance' that QM implies, which is very important.. It's a pity that experimentators were able to demonstrate it only a long time after Einstein's death, what would have been his reaction??

hunterpayne 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It should be pointed out that the math of spinning black holes which Einstein needed to reconcile GR and QM wasn't discovered/invented until the 1980s. And we still haven't really checked to see if he was on to something. A big part of this is that the young have the energy to spread their ideas. The old often don't. That has as much to do with these things as being right or "on to something".

ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not a physicist, so this may be a dumb question… but do we even know for sure it’s a problem with a solution?

KalMann 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not a physicist either but my understanding is that is that if you believe that we can discover all the laws of physics that explain how the world operates then it needs to have a solution.

Like we have formulas describing how gravity works. We can test these formulas by observing the motion of the planets and galaxies. Is this theory true? There's lots of evidence for it so it feels like it's gotta be pretty close to "the truth"

We also have formulas describing how elementary particles behave. These formulas have been tested to a very high degree of precision so it seems they've got to be close to the truth as well. But if you use both our formulas for gravitation and formulas for elementary particles you can derive a contradiction. So these two theories cannot simultaneously be true. There's got to be something wrong with them.

I suppose there's the possibility that at a certain point nature simply doesn't follow any laws and you can't possibly make sense of it.

lmm 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, the universe does something with extremely small but extremely heavy objects, unless you think that merely creating that situation will cause the universe to cease to exist.

ninkendo a few seconds ago | parent | next [-]

[delayed]

hunterpayne 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Now consider that the density of an atomic nucleus is oddly similar to the density of a black hole. And this was the path Einstein was following. Too bad you need computers to study it because of all the differential equations.

31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
ktallett 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So we do know that all the tiny interactions like charge of particles etc must work side by side with all the big interactions like gravity as otherwise how would anything as we know it work. However it could as easily be neither are the right way to interpret the world and there is something we are missing, or we are right and we can find a method to combine the theory of the big and the small interactions but we are missing a section. At the end of the day we can't interact in any meaningful way with more than half the matter in the universe (it's proven to exist due to a gravitational pull), so it's clear we can't experience a lot of the universe and we definitely can't explain a lot.

So yes there is a solution, but do we, as humans, have the ability to come up with it, who knows. I would say it's unlikely.