Honestly, I don't like the name string theory at all. Why? Because it implies a basic starting point, a string. From the very start this limits the possibilities of what this theory can give us.
I would rather it be called The Unified Physics Model. I would rather that people concentrate on the idea of unification than on any particular limited human concept. Why? Because any theory or model is really just an abstraction and will allways be an abstraction, so let's not limit ourselves nor beat around the bush and confuse the layman.
For example, H is the symbol for Hydrogen, but Hydrogen is really an electron orbiting a Nucleus. But an Electron is really a charged particle with negative charge and spin. And negative charge means it has a negative electric field and attracts to positive fields and repels from other negative fields.
But the promise of a unified theory is not bunk at all; in fact it is required. In fact, it is logical. The naming we put on things, the labelling, that is the problem. But we don't need to know what the theory even is, nor how it really even works.
"Oh come on, are you nuts?" you might ask. "What are you really trying to say?"
I am saying point blank, that our very outdated methods of science itself are preventing us from making further progress. They are getting us lost, in names, conventions and abstractions all in a vain attempt to put a perfect set of equations down on the blackboard. How many years must someone study before they get a working model of all these abstractions? Honestly, there are not enough years in the human life to understand every area of physics and chemistry.
This begs the question,why then are we trying to master these names, abstractions and math? Why are we continuing to do something that a computer could do better?
And this is the crux of my argument. The computer only sees bits and bytes. Likewise, why should we see any more than this? Why do we need to know anything more than: The computer models the reality, what more do I need to know?
I propose that science is becomming quickly oudated. We focus on the mechanism and finding a better way to express it abstractly and in this process lose sight of what our true goal all along should be: RESULTS.
I propose that a unified theory, in reality is not necessary, and in fact, a total destraction. We should immediately stop looking for it! Likewise, we should drop all labels for anything. I will call it "reality." I apply no theories, just pure math and feed it into my computer. And use as many dimensions as you deam useful!
"But you need some model, some abstraction from which to base your math" you may further argue.
True, you need some starting point, but I argue it is not important what you pick as long as it works; as long as it predicts a correct result. And you should change it in a moment if some other model proves more efficient.
For example, I wrote an ephemeris years ago, which was accurate to a minute of arc. My program applied standard Keplar Dynamics to approximate the location of the planet. It then used a fourier transform to simulate the perturbations and get a more accurate result.
But let's be honest, why did I even bother modelling the Keplar Dynamics? I could have jumped to the fourier transform and be done with it. Ok, sometimes it was useful to start with a simplification, but I know a competitor who had an accuracy of one second of arc and only used fourier transforms based off of a much more accurate ephemeris.
So, if I want to build a rocket, why do I even need to know or care what the name of the materials are or even start to wonder what shape I should start with? Is it really important? Why should I guess, when a computer can do it all more accurately?
We are getting lost in the abstractions of reality and losing sight of optimal solutions! Our drive for perfection should be in the results, not in the abstraction.
Personally, I would rather tell the computer, "I need to go to the Moon and return in safety, now tell me what I need to do." The computer would find the most optimal way to get to the Moon and print out a list of optimal instructions.
This is the future. It is not a dumbing down of science. It is facing of reality, finally, and getting our egos out of the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment