|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers #953454 added March 1, 2019 at 12:06am
Restrictions: None
New Quarker
As I've mentioned before, I haven't been a fan of The New Yorker. Their pretentiousness and predilection for deconstructing freaking everything is annoying. When I was a kid, I would read the mag (I liked the comics), and trust that when I got older, I'd understand what the fuzz they're going on about.
It never happened.
I just figured they're smarter than I am and left it at that. But finally - just this past week - I saw an article that was dumbed down enough for me to grok:
https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/a-different-kind-of-theory-of-everyth...
When it comes to quantum physics, things get weird. Like, mind-bendingly, mad-hattery weird. I don't pretend to understand most of it, but I read as much as I can about it.
Of the various classical laws of motion—all workable, all useful—only the principle of least action also extends to the quantum world.
Now, see, that's where I can relate. I, too, follow a Principle of Least Action.
Arkani-Hamed now sees the ultimate goal of physics as figuring out the mathematical question from which all the answers flow.
Insert reference jokes about the number 42 here.
Yes, I'm aware of the irony of stating that when that mag finally published something I could comprehend, it was about quantum physics. I guess that's just how my mind works.
I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.
-J.B.S. Haldane |
© Copyright 2019 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
