Hacker News Reader

Comment by mr_mitm | Hacker News Reader

> quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me

For the record, I wrote "very hard to imagine". If you claim it can be possible, it is you who must produce at least a suggestion on how it could be possible.

> And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics.

I know that's a popular trope, but what they usually mean is that they don't understand it on an intuitive level. You can understand the math of it just fine.

QM is by far the most successful theory we ever had and laid the foundations for the transistor, lasers, CCD chips, solar panels, MRIs, and much more. It's responsible for arguably the biggest transformation of society of all times. You don't get there without understanding even the smallest nook of that theory.

Maybe we have different definitions of what it means to understand something, but that's not a discussion I'm interested it.

View on HN

Yep, nothing around us would work if quantum mechanics didn't work just the way people figured out that it works.

It's just that most people, even those who understand it best, still find it to be pretty wild that things actually work this way.

"You can understand the math of it just fine."

Can you explain it?

That is usually the bar for understanding.

Also, can you explain to me how gravity works?

It's been a while, but yeah, I probably could. I've been teaching general relativity seminars on a graduate level while I was getting my PhD. Not sure if I could explain it to you, because it sounds like you lack the necessary prerequisites (no offense). Also, please understand I do not have the time to teach GR to random internet strangers.

You can really explain how gravity works?

To quote wikipedia:

"Scientists are currently working to develop a theory of gravity consistent with quantum mechanics, a quantum gravity theory,[7] which would allow gravity to be united in a common mathematical framework (a theory of everything) with the other three fundamental interactions of physics."

(And unlike your assumptions, my background involves some physic)

So I am curious for your grand unified theory.

Please don't take it personally, but I don't enjoy discussions with someone who can only communicate in questions. If you have something of substance to say, say it.

I say I doubt your claim that you can explain gravity by me citing wikipedia and the common thoughts on this. If that has not enough substance to you, we can indeed end this.

Why are you so surprised? We understand how gravity works to an incredible degree of precision, and anyone with a physics degree is able to explain it.

You seem to have some misconceptions around physics. If you go through the formal training that we go through (i.e. spend years thinking about physics problems, papers and textbooks) you should understand that mathematics is a tool, and that physics is our best attempt at building mathematical objects that behave like the real world.

What I mean by this is that we’re well aware that our theories are not perfect, and we can point to what doesn’t work (within our respective fields) quite well. At the same time, we’re aware of certain “features” of reality that cannot possibly be otherwise. Thermodynamics or special relativity are simple examples of this. Their validity is not in question, just as our existence in the first place is not in question (if you want to argue about philosophy go ahead, but that has nothing to do with the point I’m making).

Therefore, even though we don’t have a perfect theory of physics, we can say that we understand certain stuff quite well. And vague statements about life and “new ideas” don’t help us advance our understanding.

P.S. my view of the common “nobody understands quantum mechanics” saying is that only people who are too attached to classical reality can hold that opinion. The great founders of QM grew up without it, so are excused in thinking that QM is unintuitive. But for the most part the uneasy feeling about QM disappears when you let go of classical assumptions for good.

"Therefore, even though we don’t have a perfect theory of physics, we can say that we understand certain stuff quite well."

Sure I agree to that.

"And vague statements about life and “new ideas” don’t help us advance our understanding."

But I disagree that we understand it well enough to exclude subatomic life with certainty.

So vague questions like the one here in this thread certainly won't push the field. It is more about a principle of being open to me and explore the idea a bit with different minds.

Because I know enough history of arrogant science thinking they know it all already. I suppose you are aware of Max Planck? That his Professor tried to discourage him from taking up physics as it is all already well understood and not much remains be found and understood?

Statements from your sibling poster reminded me of that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com