Slashdot Mirror
Scientist Investigate A Brand New Form of Matter: Time Crystals (sciencealert.com)
The discovery of "non-equilibrium matter" could re-write the rules of physics. Long-time Slashdot reader jasonbrown quotes ScienceAlert: For months now, there's been speculation that researchers might have finally created time crystals — strange crystals that have an atomic structure that repeats not just in space, but in time, putting them in perpetual motion without energy. Now it's official — researchers have just reported in detail how to make and measure these bizarre crystals. And two independent teams of scientists claim they've actually created time crystals in the lab based off this blueprint, confirming the existence of an entirely new form of matter.
Both teams -- one at Harvard and the other at the University of Maryland -- have submitted their findings to peer-reviewed publications, according to the article, and "the fact that two separate teams have used the same blueprint to make time crystals out of vastly different systems is promising."
Both teams -- one at Harvard and the other at the University of Maryland -- have submitted their findings to peer-reviewed publications, according to the article, and "the fact that two separate teams have used the same blueprint to make time crystals out of vastly different systems is promising."
Let me guess, all you need is bleach, ammonia, a penny, and blowing bubbles in it with a soda straw to grow these amazing 'time crystals'?
Perpetual motion is one of Newton's Laws...
This sounds too much like an April Fool's post!
http://timecube.2enp.com
While cool i agree, and i can see perhaps some esoteric use beyond basic research, what sort of practical day-to-day use for the common man would there be?
Wow, there's truly no limit to your stupidity, is there?
in their ground state.
However, that would violate quantum electrodynamics, because then you would know the atoms exact momentum and location.
???
The two lasers that were periodically nudging the ytterbium atoms were producing a repetition in the system at twice the period of the nudges, something that couldn't occur in a normal system.
When they're saying 'twice the period of the nudges', do they mean twice the frequency of the nudges, or twice the duration of the nudges? What I'm after here is, is whether or not they're actually implying that there's more energy coming out of this than is being put into it, and by the way unless I'm totally misreading it, it sounds like this isn't 'perpetual motion' at all, not in the sense I think of 'perpetual motion', because they have to 'nudge' it with a pulse from a laser to cause this effect to occur -- unless what I'm missing here, is that all they have to do is 'nudge' it once, and it starts a self-sustaining oscillation? Even if it's self-sustaining once started, isn't it then in a state of equilibrium regardless, and any attempt to tap into the energy of that oscillation would cause it to stop?
... so my watch can use even less energy with the "perpetual moving crystal" as a time base. What, you say it has to be cooled to 0K to actually behave fundamentally different from conventional crystals? Too bad...
Smarter people than you say otherwise:
Stopped reading after that doozy. It's every other day those laws re getting rewritten if you listen to the hype merchants.
Thinking for a moment like I'm reading a science fiction novel, what if the energy sustaining it's oscillation is coming from outside the physical Universe, from 'subspace', if you will? Ignoring the possibility, especially in the face of accepted facts like the continual expansion of the Universe, and the 'spooky action at a distance' of entangled particles, is rather foolish, don't you think? To believe that we've discovered all there is to discover in physics is about as arrogant as you can get.
These are just oscillatory systems, of a particular form that have structural integrity as of the dynamics of the system instead of rigidity. Thermodynamics and time going forward are still the same, it's a bit naive to say it's a new form of matter when it's a system of elements.
yeah and that whole 'round earth' thing is bullshit too, everyone knows it's flat. Do you really think we can all stand on a big sphere? Nope!
It really annoys me when armchair physicists poopoo anything proposed by people far far far smarter than them simply because it may defy what we call the laws of physics. The universe does not conform itself to our understanding of the universe; our understanding conforms to IT.
We can throw whatever rules and laws we like at it but the entire history of the human species is an insignificant speck compared to the universe and we've seen but an infinitesimal part of it.
As our understanding and technology increases then our 'laws of physics' are bound to falter and require change, just like those that would say the sun revolves around the earth.
Perpetual motion machines are allowed by the laws of physics. The galaxy is one for example, it perpetually rotates effectively forever, and by definition beyond what we can measure.
What IS impossible, is to remove energy from the system. If you do that, any machine stops, eventually, unless you add it back in somehow.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I remember reading about some sci-fi author who wanted a huge interstellar space ship millions of miles long but the control system would take hours to affect a course correction so some physicist postulated a cable made of a material with a 4th dimensional component thus cutting communication time way down.
Anything that moves or vibrates radiates some energy. Hence such crystals would provide "free" energy and that is very, very, very unlikely to be possible in this universe.
It's also very, very, very unlikely that you are not as smart as you think you are.
In any universe.
Movement does conserve energy... it's the inefficient events between movements that release energy (removing the potential energy from the movement). For instance if take your bicycle wheel and put it in a vacuum and make the spindle perfectly friction free then it will conserve the enrgy you give it when you spin it for ever... it's just very very hard to make it perfectly efficient. If you have a form of mater that moves in a conservative way at the nanoscale then these efficiency issues are more quantized than at the macro-scale (rather than a measure of friction there are a number of finite configurations one of which could be perfectly efficient). Measurement on the other hand usually entails interacting with the energy and absorbing it, the only other way might be that you have to give energy to the system to receive it for a zero energy in zero energy out scenario.
I meant to say rather than a continuous measure of friction
Smarter people than you say otherwise:
This. Mod parent up.
Quantum-mechanical systems in their ground state cannot radiate energy, because they are already in their lowest possible energy-state.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
( I hope these researchers are certain about their findings ... )
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
There's a difference between perpetual motion and free perpetual energy.
I'll just leave this here.
Measurement is not based on work carried out rather motion. An object that moves even in a ground state must expend energy.The link you provided proposes a theory to address this problem but I think at this point I would side with the sceptics.
Someone already did. You're welcome.
... but yeah, it sounds like time cubes.
What do you think all the crystals are in the Final Fantasy games?
#DeleteFacebook
I got bunch of 16MHz time crystals in my electronic parts box.
Omg the timecube guy was right.....
It is embarrassing, really.
Galaxy do not rotate forever, as they are led by gravity, and the matter rotating will lose energy with time. The rate suns and matter rotating lose energy is very slow, but a galaxy will not rotate forever. There is no such thing s as PMM in real physic, because there is always energy loss and entropy factoring in. Yes even in space where the the energy loss are minimal, they do exists.
Everyone drop what you're doing, we've got an anonymous scientific genius in our midst today! Sir, will you please share your boundless wisdom with us?
You're taking macro-phenomena and trying to apply that at sub-atomic levels where laws break and new rules apply. You don't know what you're talking about.
It's likely a perpetual motion or energy machine isn't feasible in our lifetime. It's another thing to call that impossible - that would require more study.
Anything that moves or vibrates radiates some energy. Hence such crystals would provide "free" energy and that is very, very, very unlikely to be possible in this universe.
Nope, not necessarily. The state of the material is its lowest energy "ground" state. Quantum mechanical ground states can easily have overall dynamical motion, but avoid interaction with the electromagnetic field that would cause radiation because there's no state with lower energy. These will act the same as normal matter - they'll give off energy from breaking bonds when you break them, but are otherwise inert.
Bose-Einstein Condensate has exactly the same property,except the regularity. The overlap of the particle wave means that the system moves inevitably, re-creating the bulk through time on the same organisation as the space bulk organisation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You went to all the articles to write the same thing? You do have a passion on bringing trump up when it got nothing to do with trump.
Have fun trolling.
This sounds interesting to say the least, but I'd be more interested to hear about what potential applications these "time crystals" might be used for.
High-density storage? Super-batteries? Time portals?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Asimov clearly covered this ground in his brilliant paper "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline".
Nothing to see here. Move on.
You can't even properly capitalize and punctuate properly. This is an indication of the typical intellect of a modern-day liberal.
You didn't read your tea party signs when you were marching a few years ago did you?
Typical republican pot calling the kettle black crap. You guys need better propaganda tactics! When a 5th grader can call you out on your obvious BS, you have serious problems!
Mkay. Based on that logic we could migrate all our garbage and nuclear waste to mexico, it is our basic human right after all.
When I finally get round to sorting out the optional extras for my flying car kick-starter, time crystals is well on the list.
Cuck yourself to some BLM members, you're just oppressing your wife otherwise.
Look at the time cube illustration -- it's crystalline!
Dilithium has the same sort of structure.
If you want to cleave a dilithium crystal you have to whack it last month, hit it now, and tap it lightly a week from next tuesday.
Can't find the citation on memory alpha; must have been one of the novels.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
No country just let's you walk in uninvited.
You kids these days, spoiled rotten and woefully uneducated.
Merica too oprrssive for you, then leave, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
you're, not your... another child left behind...
I AM a BLM member, you insensitive clod!
Will this mean fewer of those entertaining police chases that are a staple of our Arizona evening news? Cops see a van riding low on its springs and give chase. When it crashes in the desert after being pursued through city streets, twenty people pile out and run in different direction no, like roaches when you lift a rock.
Mod parent up... insightful
What if something were so tightly packed that it started absorbing neutrinos and other particles that would normally travel straight through regular matter?
Helium-4 seems to do something strange when cooled to a super-liquid - it's just not possible to cool down into a solid because the kinetic energy exceeds the electron bond strengths.
https://phys.org/news/2009-05-...
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Let's give something a sensational name like Time Crystals. That will make Slashdot. Lots of press, lots of research money. Profit!
You should read what you wrote and then seriously ponder if you should be speculating about the intelligence of other people.
Now, what you probably meant is correct. What you wrote is probably not what you meant.
To be clear, I am pretty sure you're both idiots.
It's grammar, not grammer... that's your mother's mother.
I wonder, would an asteroid (or even the Earth itself) qualify as a time crystal? They also move continually in a pattern, without expending energy to do so.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
#AlernativeFacts maybe?
He's busy writing his acceptance speech for the Anonymous Nobel Prize.
Asteroids and Earth are not in the ground state of the potential well they are in, so, according to the linked articles they don't count as time crystals.
Call Uncle Rico!!!
All this from someone who can't tell it's from its?
Yes, they really are. Everyone else has accepted the fact that this is the way it's going to be and is working towards creating a better future. Even for the whiny liberals.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Is this really a form of matter, any more than a race of bearings in the front wheels of my car are a ring crystal? They do oscillate due to temperature and have many forms of energy at times. Honestly, the math constructs were deeper than I go, but not sure how this constitutes a form of matter
BBC goes into BBW.
It violates the second law. But so does a superconductor, so who cares.
An object that moves even in a ground state must expend energy.
Did you just confuse velocity with acceleration?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I wonder, would an asteroid (or even the Earth itself) qualify as a time crystal?
No, because it is not a crystal. My counter-wonder: what happened to the quality of Slashdot commentary?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Did your mom drop you on your head? It says right in TFA that the rotation is occurring in the ground state. Stupid dipshit.
No, because it is not a crystal.
Ah, I guess you missed the part of the article where it described a time-crystal as a structure that repeats its pattern over time, instead of (or in addition to) across space. Hence the name, "time crystal".
My counter-wonder: what happened to the quality of Slashdot commentary?
It all went downhill after people decided that gratuitous insults were more worthwhile than engaging in polite discussion of the topic at hand. This was especially embarrassing in cases where it turned out their alleged "gotcha" was in fact a product of their own lack of understanding of the subject.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Now I can finaly be the god of a 99cent store
triggered much?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You: "repeats its pattern over time, instead of (or in addition to) across space". Article: "not just in space, but in time". See the difference?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You're using black in a negative context. Racist!
The two lasers that were periodically nudging the ytterbium atoms were producing a repetition in the system at twice the period of the nudges, something that couldn't occur in a normal system.
When they're saying 'twice the period of the nudges', do they mean twice the frequency of the nudges, or twice the duration of the nudges?
I read it as twice the period. Continuing with the rest of the section you quoted:
"Wouldn't it be super weird if you jiggled the Jell-O and found that somehow it responded at a different period?" said Yao.
Not at all:
- If the jello jiggles at 2 Hz and you tap it every half-second, It's not hard at all to get it to dance indefinitely at four times the rate, one quarter the period, of the periodic stimulus. Ditto a high-Q resonator - like a bell. Hit it at the corresponding phase every Nth cycle, often enough that it doesn't
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
...
"Wouldn't it be super weird if you jiggled the Jell-O and found that somehow it responded at a different period?" said Yao.
Not at all:
- If the jello jiggles at 2 Hz and you tap it every half-second, It's not hard at all to get it to dance indefinitely at four times the rate, one quarter the period, of the periodic stimulus. Ditto a high-Q resonator - like a bell. Hit it at the corresponding phase every Nth cycle, often enough that it doesn't decay appreciably, and the bell will appear to ring merrily at N times the frequency of the stimulus, forever.
- Getting something to react periodically at HALF, or 1/Nth, the rate of the stimulus, is a bit more difficult but still not hard. With Jello, for instance, you'd have to hit it in a way that would encourage it to continue in it's way in either half-cycle. Imagine a Jello tower leaning right and left, and tapping its base upward to encourage it to lean more just as it passes the middle going in either direction. That would keep it pumped up.
There are lots of ways to get that latter to work, even without a period tuned to a natural frequency of the thing being provoked:
- A flip-flop divide by two counter. Clock once, changes state. Clock again, changes back to the other state.
- A platform with a slinky in the bottom of one end of an upside-down U-shaped tube. Thump the platform up, and the slinky loops into the other leg of the U. Mechanical flip-flop.
- A wooden platform with, say, a surface feature consisting of a ring of five similar segments shaped so that, if you put a bead in the low spot of one segment, a thump makes it jump to and settle into the next segment around the loop. Put one (or some combination of up to five identical or distinguished - like by color - beads, into the low spots and the pattern of beads moves around among different configurations, returning to starting point every fifth stimulus.
I could go on for hours.
The point is that it may not be immediately obvious, but there's nothing "new physics" about a system stimulated at one rate and going through a set of state transitions that repeats periodicly, to achieve a "wiggle" of an integer fraction of the stimulus.
= = = =
And I suspect that is what is happening here. As I read it, a real time crystal would oscillate without any external stimulus.
It looks to me that, in trying to create their "time crystal", they oversimplified by making a small part of a much larger (perhaps infinite) candidate and using the lasers to simulate the boundary conditions from its connection with the rest of the candidate structure. In doing so they risk creating, instead, something like the divide-by-N situations I described above, with the boundary condition simulator providing the clock for the counter.
Call me when they get one to run without any lasers (or other external pump), say by bending their "conga line" into a circle or folding it into a polygon.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
No. They both radiate energy. Even matter in deep space has a temperature and radiates information about its changing state, and it would cool in doing so except that it also receives energy from the background temperature of the universe. It is not isolated in a repeating pattern.
An asteroid simply orbiting a massive body will radiate a tiny amount of energy as gravitational waves and even if it was in thermal equilibrium, the orbit would decay (eg. Earth would fall into the Sun after about 10^13 times the current age of the universe). They're stable but not perpetual.
Omg the timecube guy was right.....
Thanks, Laszlo. Came here for this, not leaving disappointed.
I've been sayin' it. I've been sayin' it for ten damn years. Ain't I been sayin' it, Miguel? Yeah, I've been sayin' it.
Pics or it won't happen.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
lol
Just because it takes more than a billion years for something to collapse doesn't mean it moves continually.
Attempting to read the article made me feel dumb.
So I read the comments, and now feel like a genius.
I stopped reading that article when they defined glass as a slow moving liquid
And there the problem starts. It is fascinating to see how much deeply stupid people are around here that do not even understand how limited their understanding is. The current models for Quantum Mechanics are not truth. They are rough approximations and, if history is any indicator, quite a few things presented by the press as "truth" in there will turn out to have exceptions and inaccuracies. The other problem is that actual observation is now down to indirections of indirections and only mathematical models try to explain what is actually happening there. These models could easily be way off with the lack of quality in th experimental validation.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
No country just let's you walk in uninvited.
Of course many countries let you do so! For example, you can easily walk uninvited from New York to Pennsylvania, then to West Virginia, then to Kentucky, then to...
Should all these countries start requiring visas for people to walk from one into the other, and border patrols so as to make sure people have theirs in hand?
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
The Earth radiates energy through gravity waves, which means that its orbit is slowly decaying. The operative word here is "slowly": the power is about 200 watts, or roughly the power output of a mediocre Tour de France rider over a four hour stage. At that rate the Sun will go nova well before there is any measurable difference in orbit.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
No. It's scientists* investigate.
There are two teams. This is not one scientist. How does the OP not know the difference between singular and plural?
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
And I'm not sure "object" and "motion" exactly apply here.
There are three types of perpetual motion machines, each of which is impossible for different reasons. A perpetual motion machine of the first type is impossible because it violates conservation of energy. A perpetual motion machine of the second type is impossible because it violates the second law of thermodynamics (e.g. by extracting thermal energy from a reservoir without having a cooler reservoir to dump waste heat). A perpetual motion of the third type is impossible because you can't build a machine that doesn't have friction.
Notice how the third type is impossible for a different kind of reason. A system which is perpetually changing in a periodic manner doesn't necessarily violate any physical laws, unless the motion characterizes something you can characterize as a bearing.
The crux of people's objections here is that a "time crystal" sounds a lot like a perpetual motion machine of the third type. But it's not a "machine" of any kind: it's a crystal structure. And motion on that kind of physical scale is a squirrelly concept. Is the electronic resonance of a benzene ring "motion", and an election an "object"? If so then a benzene molecule is a perpetual motion machine.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So is a rotating fan a time crystal?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
What I always feared as a kid was that the Timesplitters were/are/will be real. This might be it.
At least Dr. Jacob Crow wasn't part of the research team.
Galaxy note 42 :
It has just been announced that the new replacement wearable computer will use the energy produced from this to power its latest device.
Unfortunately due to an error in production the Universe exploded
My counter-wonder: what happened to the quality of Slashdot commentary?
You started posting?
Things would go slower when approaching? The crystal kind of throbs like strobes but in things accelerating and decelerating when approaching it? Bigger crystal, slower time and longer things slowed? Words must be missing for this even if Brain can emulate the idea structure.
Glass IS a slow moving liquid. Wait long enough and your window melted.
The rule of law is a joke. It only applies to those who decide which laws are worth obeying. People decide not to follow law that mandates insurance. Trumpskins decides not to enforce it. Not one white nationalist is up in arms about obeying the law. You guys are jokes.
That is actually not a bad idea. I would definitely win it if it existed. (I'm not the same anonymous coward as any of the others.) I know how to solve the mystery of dark matter and unify all of physics. I really do. I'm just worried if I share it with the world it will be used to make a weapon so powerful it will end up killing all life on Earth. If I could do it anonymously at least I would not be blamed for destroying the world
I can't imagine time crystals but can I buy a bag of them to go? What could a man do with 20 lbs. of time crystals?
It's up for debate:
http://news.emory.edu/stories/...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
http://www.nature.com/news/wor...
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Can I cast fireballs with them? Or mix potions? Or will they capture the soul on critical strike, so it could be used to enchant my sword?
No country just let's you walk in uninvited.
Mm hm.
You kids these days, spoiled rotten and woefully uneducated.
LOL. Suggestion: Learn how to use apostrophes before you accuse others of being uneducated.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Anything that moves? Everything moves. Everything, ever, moves.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
To answer your question: your latter part is wrong. Planets (etc.) *DO* lose energy. Apart from space never being completely empty (and thus there is always miniscule drag), there is also the simple fact that they constantly loose gravitational energy with each orbit they make.
It's miniscule, but one does see it happen pretty obviously with high-density objects, such as black holes. Two black holes circling each other will eventually merge. Each object orbiting another in space-times creates ripples, and with these ripples they loose (gravitational) energy.
http://news.emory.edu/stories/...
"The real reason the bottom is thicker is because they hadn't yet learned how to make perfectly flat panes of glass," Weeks says. "For practical purposes, glass is a solid and it will not flow, even over centuries. But there is a kernel of truth in this urban legend: Glasses are different than other solid materials."
I would rather see boobs jiggled.
The current models for quantum mechanics are not rough approximations. They're astonishingly exact models. If history is any indicator, what we'll see is what we expect. Quantum mechanics is very frustrating that way: without some success at getting results that don't follow the model, there's no good way to improve the model.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
His includes the article's.
an election an object? oh, you meant erection
and no reference to Blinx.
You know, I really liked that game.
This sounds like something which is definitely true and which I absolutely believe.
In numbers, yes. In values of "true", they are rough approximations. It is the latter we are talking about here.
Incidentally, classical mechanics is also an "astonishing exact model" with regards to accuracy in many circumstances. It just happens to be very far from complete and there are conditions where its accuracy becomes bad enough that the model breaks down completely and becomes "untrue".
The same is very likely the case for quantum mechanics, yet all these science-fanatics (that are universally bad scientists or no scientists) think that quantum mechanics represents absolute truth. It does not. On the level of understand what is actually going on, it is a rough approximation. The difference is that we know what circumstances classical mechanics needs to be a good model, yet we do not know them for quantum mechanics and that makes the approximation "rough".
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I think he was more taking exception to your use of the word "rough"
Which.. I have to kind of say I do, too.
I fully understand what you're saying regarding the tough-to-swallow-pill that we live in a universe ruled by statistics with seemingly random constants punched in.
But there's nothing "rough" about the approximation QM and QED provide us.
It's upsettingly exact and for all the people like you (and I) who don't like the taste of a universe governed in such a way, upsettingly infallible.
It is our theory of how everything we can interact with works- and it's 100% correct in every instance we have the energy to test.
Nothing violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. NOTHING, I say!!
I use "rough" intentionally, because that is what I mean. If there were only minor deviations and the theory would essentially be correct in all situations, I would not use "rough". However, as in the example with classical mechanics, it is quite possible that there are situations were the model basically fails completely, and that is why I call it a "rough" approximation.
Incidentally, no, we do not have 100% correctness. We have pretty good correctness in the sense that results are within the margins of error from what the theory predicts in the cases tried and where the experimental results are observed trough a number of indirections. For classical mechanics, high accuracy in all observed situations was true for a long, long time as well. Then new experiments were done with new technology, because some small deviations crept up in some experiments that eventually could not be explained away with observational errors anymore. The experiments done to confirm Quantum Theory are pretty limited in comparison to the situations that are physically possible and there are some experiments underway that have not yet had conclusive results, for example the experiment whether computations on larger number of entangled particles actually behave according to theory (i.e. whether quantum computing actually works when you have a few hundred entangled particles or more). Sure, these experiments are hugely difficult and complicated, but the same is true for the experiments needed to show the limitations of classical mechanics when you take the state-of-the-art of technology back then into account.
I am not saying the science is bad. I am just saying there are good reasons to believe the currently known models are incomplete and should not be taken as absolute. We may eventually have a GUT (Grand Unifying Theory) and then really have a "true" and complete model of physics. But at this time we are not there and it is unclear whether we will ever get there.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
*except superconductors
I use "rough" intentionally, because that is what I mean. If there were only minor deviations and the theory would essentially be correct in all situations, I would not use "rough". However, as in the example with classical mechanics, it is quite possible that there are situations were the model basically fails completely, and that is why I call it a "rough" approximation.
And I still object whole-heartedly with that logic. You're claiming it's rough because it has not been disproven. That's a piss-poor argument.
Incidentally, no, we do not have 100% correctness.
Incidentally, I'm unaware of any non-pedantic argument you could make to back up that claim.
As I said, we have correctness within the energy levels we can test with. Sure the margins of error are there, but they're impressively standing up well to the march of technology. I'd love to be schooled otherwise here, because all I see from you is fallacious logic.
Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice.
An inner voice tells me that guy isn't wrong. And that you and I agree on that point. But I think you're doing QM and QED a wild injustice by calling it a rough approximation with a lack of proof to back it up. At least Einstein was honest that he had nothing but a feeling.
Yeah, somehow I failed to see that breakthrough in the headlines.
But keep at it, there's probably a Nobel prize waiting for you if you can prove it.
Many comments, many minds, many ideas. I wonder, what would be the most coherent?
Umm, just so you know, the one doing the fucking isn't the cuck....