spray with unsaturated Olea europea lipidsHow do you remove the saturated ones?
Not that I object but Eternal Student may.Thank you but I'm not too worried about this thread. All people who have replied have my thanks. I may not be following the thread after today.
Just look at the benefits that flowed from Maxwell's unification of magnetic and electric phenomena into electromagnetics. Obviously the outstanding problem is the incompatibility of GR and quantum.What benefits do you suppose might come from a theory that works at the intersection of those two, such as describing the earlier moments of the big bang?
Looks like the @OP has deserted the Thread.I'm alive. However, you are welcome to take over.
Why is it so Hard to formulate an Understanding of Quantum Gravity?The short answer is that I don't really know. It's easy to find articles written about how a theory has been (sucessfully) quantised BUT the attempts to do something that fail don't tend to make the journals or become good material for any magazine: "In this article we are going to spend hours going through an attempt to quantise a theory. It doesn't end up making sense or working at all.... but we're going to run a 6 hour session on it anyway."
If a basket full of apples can be weighed n mass found out.This is often half the problem. "Mass" isn't what we have come to think it is. In classical physics, things have a mass and it's a property that just should exist for any particle. Gravity is especially concerned with this mass because mass is the most important source of gravitation. Newton's laws of gravity have F = GMm/r2 and the mass is the ONLY source of gravity. General Relativity broadens the sources of gravity slightly, anything that is a source of what is called "stress-energy" and appears in the stress-energy tensor is a source of gravity. Mass is still the most important thing, this is the major source of gravity but other things like a flow of momentum through space can also be a source of gravity.
What is currently missing from quantum gravity is any evidence of or requirement for quantisation.I would generally agree.
If you want to quantise it, you need to invent an entity that sucks and is (quasi)continuously radiated in infinite quantities from everything without changing any property of the source.I'm not so sure. We have reasonably quantised the electroweak force. So, on a macroscopic scale a simple static positive charge is constantly radiating photons because these are the gauge bosons that will cause an electrostatic attraction with anything else in the region. Keeping the description and model as simple as possible, the charged particle isn't losing mass or energy and dwindling away to nothingness as it emits these. In simple terms we would declare the force carrying photons to just be "virtual particles" and they are "borrowing" their energy from ? lets call it "the quantum background" rather than directly decreasing the mass of the charged particle, they are short lived and all energy is paid back in a very short time.
(i) We have a collection of theories.I agree with the OP, Its more like a path made with broken flag stones than a single theory.
(ii) Different theories will cover different bits and pieces of stuff that arise here and there.
(iii) Theories are judged on their usefulness and ability to make predictions, especially if these can be tested.
(iv) Some elegant thories will also be kept beause we're human and it's inevitable we will do this.
(v) Chips or "fries" cannot be served with the potato skin left on, it's not better.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Best Wishes.