Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Crowdfund The Theory of Everything (cphpost.dk)
einar.petersen writes: Danish scientists are seeking to fund their research on the theory of everything in a rather unconventional way, namely via crowdfunding. The two researchers have launched a campaign that as of writing is 55% funded....
"Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life searching for an answer to the deepest question about the universe: does a fundamental principle, that governs all of reality, exist...?" reads their Indiegogo page. "In 2013 we, the theoretical physicist Jesper Moller Grimstrup and the mathematician Johannes Aastrup, discovered a simple mathematical principle, which we believe could be exactly what Einstein was searching for." One Danish newspaper jokes that the mathematician and theoretical physicist "are now offering mere mortals a chance to get in on the action."
"Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life searching for an answer to the deepest question about the universe: does a fundamental principle, that governs all of reality, exist...?" reads their Indiegogo page. "In 2013 we, the theoretical physicist Jesper Moller Grimstrup and the mathematician Johannes Aastrup, discovered a simple mathematical principle, which we believe could be exactly what Einstein was searching for." One Danish newspaper jokes that the mathematician and theoretical physicist "are now offering mere mortals a chance to get in on the action."
42
MS, ALS, Aphasia ? http://globability.org - Me http://einarpetersen.com
Of course it does. It is extremely simple too:
Everything will grow as big as it can before it explodes.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Can anyone knowledgable in the field give a yes/no on the sanity of their research? If I decide to help fund it, I would like some idea that it isn't all snake oil.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
I've been wondering whether AI systems may advance science @ some point. I mean: not just as a tool with a human at the control knobs & interpreting results, but by itself as the 'entity' doing the advancing.
Some significant advances have been made not through heaps of grunt work, but when great minds like Einstein did their thing. Seeing patterns in their mind that no-one else saw. Sadly, such great minds are rare. And have a limited lifespan - of which a big part is spent learning the subject matter. And no matter how genius, with hard limits on the # of grey cells that can be thrown at the problem.
Artificial intelligent systems don't have such flesh-and-blood limitations: these can effectively be built at will, any size, optimized for specific problems sets, etc. Lately computerized systems have beat humans at increasingly complex tasks. Sometimes using brute force. Sometimes by looking at a problem from many angles at once. Fed with enough data, 'seeing' connections somehow that even experts in the field might overlook.
Regardless how it works exactly, fact is you might say that for some problems, we've built AI systems that are more capable than a "genius" human at finding solutions. Would it be hard to imagine that @ some point, an AI system might spit out a new formula, discover some as-of-yet-unseen regularity in scientific data, or find a path to unify as-of-yet-non-unified scientific theories?
Exciting times...
What kind of sloppy reporting is that? It was carried out by Jews, with help from the Illuminati and David Icke's lizards. Sasquatch flew one of the planes, and Nessie, the other. The team that faked the Moon landings was in charge of installing the charges that brought down the Twin Towers, as Nostradamus predicted.
That post pretty much wraps up an entire day of History Channel programming
Don't they have the Hitler Hour any more? At one time they used to have it every 60 minutes.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Good luck to them. FWIW, their "Quantum holonomy" theory has only a minor mention in the Wikipedia article on quantum gravity.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Most of this seems fascinating to read, and a some of these have interesting implications :)
What would you do if you discovered that the world, the universe was just one of god's jokes?
Would you work any less hard to make it a good joke?
The researchers have few citations other than their own and apparently can't get funding from anyone who would know enough to judge whether their work has any merit.
It's pretty much all pawn and antique shows now. A good alien program every once in a while relieves the monotony.
Reality television has ruined many a channel.
Research on World of Warcraft has been used to study things from how information is distributed to pathogen transmission.
Much cheaper than having to design and populate those systems on their own.
Who knows, maybe these guys are onto something. I see some warning signs, though.
See, these guys have been working on this theory for some time. They've developed some language (as in L) of their own and it sounds like they're having some trouble showing that it is internally consistent. This shouldn't really be a speedbump. It should be possible to first of all show that a space can exist in the algebra, by finding a basis. This would simply require finding a set of linearly independent vectors satisfying the expression of every pertinent "dimension" that the algebra requires. In commutative algebra, this is trivial.
Personally, I think any unified theory should be simple to demonstrate in R^3 using linear algebra. Coming up with a convoluted mathematical expression for the universe is by no means anything new; you can do this any time you want by defining a language L and giving it a set of operations that satisfy your view of a given universe of whatever size. You can describe an infinite universe with a finite number of operations, by placing some constraint on what's observable in that universe, such as by stating that everything observable in that universe exists in R^3. There you go, now your universe can just exist as a set of vectors (classical physics). If you want to add things like quantum entanglement you simply create some operations and show that the results of the operations can be reliably reproduced. There you go, your language for your universe is internally consistent.
Since these guys are kind of going out on a mathematical limb, I think they've reached egg-head stage. Which means there's a possibility that nothing they're working on now has any basis in reality. It might have a "basis" in terms of linear programming and that sort of thing, it might even be consistent to itself, but you have to take into consideration that it's a constructed language. There might not be any real-world way to take their "EUREEKA" moment and translate it back into the R^3 that we all live in, to use it for any kind of practical predictions or applications.
There are already some pretty good candidates for Grand Unified Theories that aren't seeking crowd funding and have also been published portion by portion academically. I'm rather partial to the theory posited by Willie Johnson Jr., supervisor of Rutgers Inorganic Analytical Laboratory. He basically wants to describe everything in the universe as a sort of "centrifugal force", and he's done extensive work unifying various classical and quantum formulae through the units he's come up with. And what's better, his work appears to be completely presentable in linear algebra. http://www.lehighvalleylive.co...
There are enough theories out there for everybody to find one that's their pet theory and work on following it or even adding to its development. Finding a Grand Unified Theory is a great ambition and its can serve as the constant impetus that keeps a person learning more things and proposing and testing more hypotheses.
What I see in this project is somebody who might be burned out already, who might have already rapped their knuckles against the white painted rock wall they thought was the light at the end of the tunnel, and is now asking for money to dig themselves back out. I'm not saying that's the case -- I'm just pointing out that it's a distinct possibility.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
...is pretty much a guaranteed signal of a terrible idea. Obviously if you were actually carrying on some work from Einstein that would be super cool, but this phrase gets used for every perpetual motion machine and grand unified crackpot theory; it's a weird dog whistle for conspiracy theorists, dreamers and idiots.
Heck, I thought by this point that was kind of an established joke - like saying your new board game "takes minutes to learn, but a lifetime to master".
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
You have no idea how science works and knowledge proceeds.
I think by definition I would have to classify myself as a PC (player character).
The real question is, are all of YOU people PCs in a massively multiple universe, or just NPCs in my own open world universe.
Psychopaths seem to act like they believe the latter, but most of us seem to act like we believe the former (well, outside of slahhdot comment posts anyway ;p )
What would be very strange is if I am the only PC, everyone else are NPCs, but DMed by the same intelligence. Everyone I treat differently in some minor way would then be aware of that fact, having knowledge that all the other NPCs could only have too.
Einstein was working on a Grand Unified Theory for decades before he died, but he came nowhere close.
It didn't help that he was sceptical about quantum mechanics (especially aspects like non-locality and entanglement).
This is a completely different kind of GUT, related only by the fact that it is designed to reduce to General Relativity in the classical limit.
Being a foreigner, I always pronounce it with an accent, but Hystery Channel sounds about right to me anyway...
Ezekiel 23:20
Well maybe so, I am always open to the possibility I may be in error.
Your statement however hasn't given me any cause to reconsider my position or that you have any comprehension of the subject you are pontificating on.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture once gave researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
For anyone who thinks that's wasted money:
a) Read up on the causes of climate change.
b) Read up on how many people are affected by climate change. And what the damage in economic terms may be.
c) Read up on how powerful a greenhouse gas methane is. and
d) Read up on how many cows there are in the world, and ballpark figure(s) for how much methane each cow produces.
$700k to know more about that? Perhaps find ways to knock off some % from that methane output? $700k is nothing to achieve such goals. What else would $700k buy a government? A few Hummers? A single Hellfire missile? One month unemployment benefits for a few dozen people? $700k to research what gasses a cow puts out: money well spent imho.
Did you know that Jews carried out the 9/11 attacks with the backing of Israel? Zionists have conspired to suppress this information and blame Muslims. It's obvious listening to recordings that the attackers had Israeli accents. The trail of money leads back to Mossad. Can anyone provide any real evidence to disprove these facts?
The burden is on you.
Also a fact would be pretty strong.
I get so tired of the hock shop shows.
Stupid bubbas paw all over interesting stuff and bring in an 'expert' who is just a guy they play poker with who hoards whatever the item is in their barn so are 'experts' on whatever it is.
The Antiques Road Show made at least a pretense of being something other than people ripping apart the historical record to make big bucks selling stuff to rich people in the cities.
And they wonder why everyone is cord-cutting...
I come here for the love
The U.S. government has spent $175,587 to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior
A: Not for long. The cats were NOT pleased and made their displeasure known.
The National Institutes of Health paid researchers $400,000 to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk
A: Because they're drunk. Because living in Argentina is itself risky behavior, so that's why they're drunk in the first place.
The National Institutes of Health also once spent $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
A: $442,340 buys a lot of prostitutes.
The NIH once spent $800,000 in stimulus funds to study the impact of a genital-washing program on men in South Africa.
A: Men in Africa have better things to do than watch people from the NIH wash their balls.
The federal government has shelled out $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research on video games such as World of Warcraft
A: We still haven't heard from them - they may have been wiped out in a raid or had a spell cast on them.
The Department of Health and Human Services plans to spend $500 million on a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that can't sit still in a kindergarten classroom.
A: Duct tape. Lot's of duct tape.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture once gave researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
A: Smells the same as farts from non-dairy cows or after eating a bad burrito.
A total of $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.
A: The Grateful Dead thank you for informing them of massive government-subsidized trademark and copyright infringement.
The U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.
A: They now offer some to the customers as well.
One professor at Stanford University was given $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.
A: There are no results available, because he went blind fapping after discovering internet pr0n.
The National Science Foundation once spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions ...
A: It depends
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Many fine physicists have burned away their lives grappling with the problem of quantum gravity. - R. P. Woodard
Depends on the god. If it were Crom, nope because Crom doesn't give a fuck.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
And has no sense of humor.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
People who have spent their entire lives working the politics of the academic financing system will not stand for this. They are not only in control of who gets money but for what.
There is a very simple rule: "Science proceeds one funeral at a time."
Basically this translates to a near complete banning of any research that could out do or overturn any established theories that were fleshed out by an active member of the senior academic community. They will have written many well cited papers, potentially many textbooks, be mentioned in many other textbooks, and have given countless talks on their fantastic discoveries or developments. So if a few twerps manage to get some funding that they don't control this could make them look foolish before they have had a chance to die.
A brilliant example of this would be the theory of how people moved into the Americas. There were facts, and there were career destroying morons who tried to contest those facts. Then as the various top researchers in the field who had done so much to not only establish these proceeding facts, but had made sure to keep them established began to retire and die, a whole new set of facts came out. People have been in the Americas long before the well established date that the earlier generation had so solidly established. But the new dates washed over the entire field as most younger researchers had pretty much known that the older guys were dead wrong, but it was career suicide to say so before those ancients were actually dead.
So if less established researchers suddenly have access to research money that doesn't only go to people who will reaffirm the brilliance of the older generation; science might accidentally start proceeding much faster.
It certainly is nothing when it isn't your money. When it's my money 700K is a pretty good chunk of change, and I would be willing to bet the same research could be done for 10% or less of that 700k.
Oh just to put this in perspective, the people TFA is talking about, are asking for 30K for a unified field theory.
I can understand having to pay more to people to stick sensors up a cow's ass but somehow I think farmers might be willing to foot some of the bill to learn about the metabolic efficiency of their livestock.
Too bad there isn't a +1 commonsnense/funny
It's from a conservative website. I bet they exaggerated most of these and/or left out key details of the story.
Table-ized A.I.
Also, do not under any circumstances open the box!
Seriously, I would never open a box with the letters "PANDORA" on it, and whoever had the idea of branding cheap jewellery with that name must have been a sick cynic.
Much of the research you've quoted seems fairly interesting to me (interest is relative, of course) and some of it also seems to be very important (e.g. genital washing practises).
In any case, since you're not familiar with how this works, here is a rough explanation: The scientist(s) have to write a very detailed research proposal, including a long state of the art overview, precise outline of the experiments to be conducted or methodology used, have to explain why the research is important, explain exactly what questions it is supposed to answer, why it may have an impact on the field and/or society, and so on. Then they need to take various bureaucratic hurdles that may range from "easy" to "almost impossible", get signatures, fill out additional forms and get ethics clearance (if animals or humans are involved), upload their credentials, CVs and prior publications, make a timeline, milestones, expected output indicators and detailed budget proposal with justification for every item, and so on. All of this takes between weeks and months of work, depending on the size of the project. Once that is done and everything is considered correct in a first vetting phase, the proposal enters a fierce competition with hundreds or thousands of other proposals. Usually, less then ten percent can get funding, although this depends very much on the call. The are evaluated and ranked by a panel of outside experts in the field according to strict guidelines that are often so detailed that they read like a book (150 pages of evaluator guidelines is not unusual). Sometimes these contests have two phases. In that case, the few winners of the first phase evaluation are then shortlisted for a second phase in which the scientists are invited to give a talk about their research projects in front of the assessment committee and the government institution that provides the funding. Again, only a few make it through this phase. These are then usually suggested for funding only, though. Normally, that means that their projects will get funding, provided that they meet all deadlines for contracts etc., but it can also happen that funding is still declined after acceptance by the scientific panel because of other funding problems, etc. After that, an account is set up, which usually requires some close collaboration with the institutions involved and their accounting departments, and the rules for the actual accounting tend to be very strict in most countries. Then some form of monitoring of the research project starts, which may range from frequent progress reports over constant re-evaluation (sometimes even by another scientific panel) to surprise visits by external controllers, depending on the strictness of the rules and how much money is involved.
And then somebody uses the one-line title of the research project or the two-line popular summary on /. to make fun of how obviously flawed the project is, forgetting that funding agencies do not just walk around and throw money at scientists. ;-)
Anyway, smart funding institutions know that research funding is very similar to investment funding. There is always a certain percentage of less or only moderately successful projects, but you take that into account because occasionally one of those projects will makes a break-through with broad impact on the field.
The most obvious answer to this question is 42.
However, that answer also outlines the more obvious question that should be posed before beginning research like this. as those who received an "answer" before didn't know what the hell to do with it.
What exactly will we do with the proverbial answer to "everything", other than fight the masses who have their own answers based on their own beliefs?
Oh well, at least Douglas Adams and PT Barnum are having a good laugh.
I don't see how crowd-sourcing the paying of researchers will help bring about a viable theory of everything. You can't purchase genius solutions to as yet unsolved deeply complex problems. This reminds me of the times when my old boss told me that I had two weeks to complete six weeks of testing. When answers come, they come. You can't speed up or buy unique solutions. When the physics and math add up, and the time is right, the theory will be developed, and later confirmed by others doing tedious work. We can't pick who will do it or pay a specific group to do so. Creativity doesn't work that way.
*facepalm*
They used to call me "Reagan" in high school because of how conservative I was. I was never as stupid as I see "conservatives" being these days. You do nothing more than attack strawmen. You are frankly fucking delusional. You're not capable of any kind of fucking rational discussion without tilting at one of your strawmen who just don't fucking actually exist.
Illegal immigrants swaying elections in favor of the D team? What the actual fuck? Illegal immigrants getting free medicaid (to help the D team)? Again what the actual fuck? Can you explain to me how an illegal immigrant does either of those things? You can't explain how you suppose it actually fucking happens to me any better than you could inform how one applies for one of these free Obamacare sex changes so me and several trans folks I know could get one. Bathroom rapists? Feminism called and wants its bullshit back. Kids buying cannabis if it's legalized for people 21+? Again, fucking how? How will they fucking do this? Kids using e-cigarettes! Oh noes! Who the actual fuck is selling kids anything with nicotine? An actual sensible healthcare system that's been proven to work in the rest of the developed world and even in some places in the developing world? SOCIALISM! Apoplectic shit fits about Mao and Stalin! Taxes are theft! Free Obamaphones? Gah! I could go on. You conservatives have lost all ability to engage in rational discussion and live in some demented paranoid fantasy as far as I can tell.
The older I get, it seems the more liberal I get. I still have my Libertarian keychain and a Libertarian Party membership card that's collecting dust in my box of stuff. And the democratic socialist candidate is the only person this entire primary season who has convinced me he has any clue what the fuck he's talking about.
I'm thinking it's about high time that we just ship most "conservatives" off to funny farms. You sure as hell aren't what my 15 year old self thought conservatism was about. Small government? Fuck no. You want dysfunctional government, not small government. I want a small, efficient, and focused government that has a fucking purpose like, I don't know, making sure that the people of my beloved country can access the increased wealth of automation instead of being squeezed until nobody is left who can afford iGummies. Yeah, that's a fucking neat trick that I can buy an iGummy for the value of 10 decent steaks. Tomorrow it may be 5. Next week it may be one. Guess what. That doesn't mean the dollar value of an iGummy is coming down. That means that the dollar value of steak is headed up, up, up and away!--all the while jobs are going away permanently for reasons you'll never comprehend and those of us who still have jobs aren't making any more fucking money at all. Your choice: an iGummy is worth a steak. Should somebody be able to afford a steak on a weekly basis, maybe as a Friday treat along with some wine? Is that too fucking much to ask for? We've got iGummies all right, but we've just fucking forgotten how the hell the meat got on the fucking table during the 50s and 60s.
Hmm, I see that pesky "no karma bonus" checkbox showed up again so clearly I haven't been doing an adequate job of burning my karma to the ground.
The reasons for studying most of the things in that list are self-evident even to a non-expert. Your position is bafflingly ignorant, similar to Sarah Palin's 'stupid scientists studying fruit flies' comment. You deserve a bit of heckling.
Your tone implies that none of that was worth studying. That's the problem... you only consider things worth studying that you can already see value in. Basic research delves into many areas that aren't obviously of value. It also may confirm things that seem obvious, but every once in a while it overturns conventional thinking. You have to make the judgement on the value before the research is done and based on why the researchers think there's an open question. Just reviewing the titles, as you have done, is a poor basis of judgement.
Einstein was working on a Grand Unified Theory for decades before he died, but he came nowhere close.
It didn't help that he was sceptical about quantum mechanics (especially aspects like non-locality and entanglement).
This is a completely different kind of GUT, related only by the fact that it is designed to reduce to General Relativity in the classical limit.
Well where has embracing the "weird" aspects of quantum mechanics actually taken us besides horribly misunderstood analogies?
You should avoid saying things like that while using semiconductors.
He effected a bored affect.
Your tone implies that none of that was worth studying
No. My tone implies that I don't want public funds used to study this material. If you are willing to spend your money to do it, that's fine go cut a check to the people seeking crowdfunding.
I met a young man who had just returned from interning at CERN, where they have the Large Hadron Collider. He told me they are sitting on mountains of data. My first thought was they should release raw data to the public in a crowdsourcing format. At least letting people donate their computing power to crunch numbers if not actually letting amateur mathematicians and physicists look at preliminary results and contribute to the discussion. I was told that it is likely due to the physicists own ego and or selfishness that they wanted to be sure to make the discoveries. This is unacceptable in my mind. Crowdfunding is not what they need but crowdsourcing. My facts are a little hazy but I know that at one of the old World Fairs a scientist decided to see how averaged answers from the public stood up to a limited number of expert opinions, guessing the weight of his cows when attending his booth would be closer to. So he took every answer given by the public and averaged them versus five (maybe seven) livestock experts. The crowdsourced answer was nearly correct (within a pound or two), with high standard deviation. While the experts had a less correct answer, something like 10-15 lbs off, but with lower stdev. This was in the early 1900's, and I it has been proven many times since then. Yet we still seem convinced that only experts can contribute to the bleeding edge of a field. Another example, Faraday. Who's work is tought to physics students today. Was an amateur mathematician who even spent time solving problems that had already been solved, only because he did not know they were solved already. My point is that these physicists have the right idea in terms of involving the general public, but this is not far enough. Release the data and let the masses get involved more than superficially. 3 things can happen. 1 nothing is solved by people and the physicists get to make their own discovery in their own time. No loss except probably a few more interns getting "hired" to respond to annoying people 2. We find more people like Faraday who can contribute to the field, despite their lack of formal membership in the Elite category Physicists place themselves. 3. We tap into crowdsourcing aka group thought, where problems are solved in little pieces by many different people in new and creative ways possibly faster than a single expert team could.Plus cheaper. (eg Hyperloop) Why do you think Musk has his patents all open source. So innovation is accelerated, and he still owns the original patent... he's kinda like a modern day Edison, minus the bad parts. Mostly. I digress... Even open source examples apply here. The robustness of their peer reviewal process enhances the end product. Don't get me wrong. I love physicists for what they have given the world, and Feynman was just great. But the internet has changed the world. Open source data mining, or machine learning, software gives amateurs the chance to move the world forward in giant leaps and bounds. I do not respect people who limit that progress for personal gain. That was what Edison did, whilst electrocuting elephants in the name of "Evil Tesla". He stifled innovation for the sake of his company's profits. Come on physicists. Dont let history see you as resisting the future while you act like there is only one way to do things. It's true that nobody can be an expert in everything these days. It doesn't mean that experts between fields can't meaningfully contribute. Plus there's gotta be more people like Faraday out there today. We have alot of people these days. Hope there's no character limit....
http://www.arjenlucassen.com/c...
If you love progressive metal... you will not be disappointed.
That is all.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Oh great, I should have known that you're not only an ignorant but really just trolling. :/
It's related to item #5 in the original list. You could argue it's not "outright wrong", but it's still highly misleading by omitting that the grant was really about testing elderly brain exercises. Video games are a sub-topic of it. If you went to school and passed, you know to summarize (title) on the primary topic, not sub-topics. Crashmarik's list is either a poorly written summary via sloppy thinking and writing, or intentionally slanted.
Table-ized A.I.
Had a bad day or what? What happened to common standards of decency in the US? Too out of fashion for guys like you?
Anyway, fact is that the research projects you've mentioned must have been gone through a lengthy competition that was evaluated by experts in the field. So you should really never judge research projects from the popular summaries (which are written for people like you, though apparently not with much success). Sure, this process can go wrong sometimes but there is no better way to distribute funding. Out of a vast number of proposals a panel of scientists selects a much smaller number of projects. There is no better way to distribute research funding, because (a) if politicians or government agency would select the winning projects, this will invariably lead to corruption, and (b) guys like you or Joe the Plumber cannot judge the scientific merits (or "payoff", as you call it) of projects in algebraic topology.
But I'm guessing you belong to the category of people who thanks to misinformation and a lack of historical knowledge are not aware that practically all of modern technology was developed at publicly funded research institutes and universities and not at private companies. You couldn't post on /. and wouldn't even have a keyboard without tax-payer funded research.
But since I'm talking to a troll, my time is wasted anyway...
Had a bad day or what? What happened to common standards of decency in the US? Too out of fashion for guys like you?
Oh great, I should have known that you're not only an ignorant but really just trolling. :/
Your words indict you.
If they are so sure, couldn't they just borrow funds against their sure Nobel Prize for such a find?
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
How much money did Einstein get when he crowdfunded his work?
No, they don't. You have entirely ignored the facts I've laid out and just made snippy remarks to boost your ego all along, so there was and is certainly no other conclusion to make. I should also make clear that I'm not interested in arguing with you or talking to you at all. My original post was and is only intended to explain to other readers why you're wrong, and I'm sure I've succeeded in that.
Funnily enough, I had no trouble with differential equations at school, but then struggled slightly with partial fractions, and when we got to partial differential equations, that's when my brain exploded and my A-level maths went down the toilet.
But thanks for the post anyway. :-)
"Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out."
It's not that something is a particle and a wave simultaneously, it's that we can get particle-like and wave-like behavior out of it depending on what we do. It's a particle or a wave at any given time, and can change freely. That's how I understand it, anyway, not being a physicist.
Feynman diagrams rely on the fact that one spatial dimension is like any other, and there are things that can adequately be represented along a line. For example, a photon travels along a line, so you can pick that line as the X axis and plot its motion in X and T. If two things can happen along the same line, they can be plotted that way (even if they would almost never be on the same line in the real world). If something needs more than one spatial dimension to describe, it won't fit into a Feynman diagram.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm not understanding why we shouldn't try for a theory of everything. There pretty much has to be one, or physics is fundamentally broken.
It doesn't have to derive from the current theories of GR and QFT; after all, neither GR nor QFT is derivable from classical physics. It does have to reduce to GR in the case of objects large enough so we can disregard their quantum nature, and to QFT in weak enough gravitational fields. (Similarly, GR and QFT reduce to classical physics for the most part, so except for its black-body radiation we can explain baseballs in Earth's gravitational field classically.) Is that what you're getting at?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Whose funds should be used? This is a great example of infrastructure development, which is generally considered best handled by government, albeit more abstract than roads and airports.
As someone whose tax money went to the Iraq war, I have no sympathy with people who just don't want their money spent on moral things the rest of us agree should be tax-funded.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes