Sunday, May 27, 2012

What assumption is wrong?

SciAm announces:
Which of the basic assumptions of modern physics are wrong? Announcing the fourth Foundational Questions Institute essay contest

There’s something unnerving about unifying physics. The two theories that need to be unified, quantum field theory and Einstein’s general theory of relativity, are both highly successful. Both make predictions good to as many decimal places as experimentalists can manage. Both are grounded in compelling principles. Both do have flaws — including an unfortunate tendency to produce the number ∞ — but those flaws remain safely behind the scenes, never undermining the theories’ empirical successes.

And yet, if the theories are incompatible, something has to give. That is what makes unification so hard. In conferences, I see physicists go down the list of assumptions that underpin their theories. Each, it seems, is rock solid. But they can’t all be right. Maybe one will, on closer inspection, prove to be not like the others. Or maybe physicists have left the culprit off their list because it is so deeply embedded in their way of thinking that they don’t even recognize as an assumption. As economist John Maynard Keynes wrote, “The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify… into every corner of our minds.”

So, for its latest essay contest, the Foundational Questions Institute is asking entrants to ferret out these mental interlopers: “Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?”
I am tempted to submit an essay arguing that our basic wrong assumption is that there is some incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics, and that physics needs to unified by resolving it.


  1. Write it if you have the time. Stir things up and make people think about their assumptions.

  2. I agree with A K Haart. You should definitely write it.

    How about the existence of subatomic particles? Nobody has ever seen one. Or the existence of photons. Or the existence of anything that physicists talk about in order to explain stuff.

    In the olden days, people used to explain stuff by talking about angels and demons. Today, these things are considered unscientific. Perhaps one day things like protons, electrons, neutrons, and quarks will be considered to be similar to angels and demons.

  3. If you assume the existence of electrons and other subatomic particles, you have to assume that they are a funny sort of particles that can be in two places at once. So I agree that they are not particles, whatever they are.

  4. Good points made above about particles. Please see my essay that answers your questions. My experiments contradict the way a photon should behave (there are no photons), and split the atom in a way that defies the particle/probability interpretation of quantum mechanics: A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory.
    Thank you
    Eric S Reiter