Gentlemen

*hint* We tie them with a knot. *hint*

General relativity is probably missing something.

>Except that the theory has no idea what a field is.
I'm sure this sounded smart, but it's completely devoid of meaning.

...

In the same way that a few vector equations describing the mechanical effect of a field is devoid of meaning for a complete explanation of a field.

Geometric expansion and projective geometry will be used to unify these theories in 2025 and in 2160 the theories are disproven as a deeper understanding of holographic projection comes to light.

Yeah, missing a basis in actual reality.

But it'll still give predictions, which is the point.

Which is fine.
The problem is that people take these models and go fucking ballistic with them.

Just say we don't know what a field is.
Don't sit there and give me the postulates about electron spin and Coriolis effects on an atomic scale and mass to void coherency, it's all bullshit.

You don't know what you're taking about.

>stop thinking

lol just turn off your brain bro

>General and Special relativity
>Thinking

Yeah, that's some thinking alright.

It's the sort of thing everyone understands but can't explain to others. It creates a feeling so isolation, which makes the pretentious believe they're solely attuned to an ancient truth.

That's what delusions of grandeur are

I'll take that. Just don't respond saying you know what you're talking about.

"Thinking" describes a state of matter, like solid or liquid or hot or cold.

To understand physical reality fully is to fully understand what's going on in your heads.

It's more about that we currently have five forces in physics that everyone talks about.
They're all separate and have nothing to do with each other from the model's point of view, to the point that people say that anti-gravity would be a sixth force.

These people aren't stupid, they're much smarter than me or you, they've just bastardised their train of thought through these mental models.

They're working backwards. We have to work forwards.

But how do we work forwards?

Description describes.
Don't worry about what's going on in someone else’s head, just look at simple empirical evidence and build from there.

Because someone else might be fucking insane.
You don't know what they're thinking, and now you have the collective models of 50 people all mashed together, with all these little titbits and workarounds so as not to invalidate the previous workings.

>Just don't respond saying you know what you're talking about.
But I do. Not as good as some, but better than you.

Go on then. Tell is what the field is.

A field is a function that assigns a value to each point in space-time with some definite transformation properties under the Lorentz group.

I'm not either of you but I think the problem is you both do understand what you're talking about. But you fail to communicate it to each other, because that's a much more complex than just understanding it.

So is right and wrong. He dosen't understand it more, he just understands how to communicate it a little better, a little differently. You both understand it all.

The field itself, what is it.
When I get two magnets and I push them together, what is that feeling?
What's that gello thing between them?

What you're describing is a mathematical model.
A field is not a function, insofar as to say that the collected heights of a field of flowers is a function. The function is the measurement.

I'm asking what caused the flowers to grow, and you're saying 12 inches.

You just proved my point. I'm
.

You're both saying the exact same thing.

>The field itself, what is it.
I just told you. Can you not read? That is what a field is, that's it literal definition.

There's a difference.
You can measure something, you can explain something.
You can use measurements to further an explanations and vice versa.

But I can't just take a single one, and prop the other on top of it's counterpart.

That's not a field, that's a function concerning a field.
And then you have to define what a point is if you take that sentence as absolute.

Can't you?

Is there not a point where two binaries, both of which are absolute, can exist?

Is there a point where all things are the same and different at the exact same time?

>That's not a field
Well this is a """"fun"""" conversation. That is what a field is, that's quite literally it's definition (See any QFT textbook, I got that from Maggiore). But this clearly isn't going to go anywhere, so enjoy your shitposting.

We'll strip it down more then.
What exactly are the field equations describing? Force, right?
An outwards or inwards tension, force, whatever.

What we then have to ask is, what is causing the tension?

COuldn't we use a Bayesian ghetto fix to combine them?

What you've done is create two binary absolutes, force/tension. Force/tension can either be outward or inward.

But what's at the center? What pushes it outward or inward? What's the cause?

You have discovered a complex symbol and reduced it down one step to something simpler. But you can go further.

I went with "cause." Case and effect. Past and future. But what's in-between? The present. What is the present? It's where we are. What are we? We are human. We are concious.

This reduction of categories is how a logical mind operates. This is what conciousness is. This is what separates us from the herd, from the rest of existence, makes us infinitely more complex than anything before us.

So then what lies ahead? Science is reverse-engineering the way reality works. How do we reverse that reverse engineering?

Can we reach a point where conciousness is the most complicated form that can exists?

It's even simpler than that. Because the forces are static.
There's nothing behind it, so you can just observe it.

Relativity has blown everything out of proportion.
We want a simple explanation, but instead we get handed Lorentz transformations and then people say "Well you can't talk to use about x and y, where are your tensor equations?"

It's because we're working backwards. I know that much. We're looking in the exact opposite direction we should be.

How do we turn around?

You just look at simple, empirical observations, and then you link the threads.

You take an experiment, and you get a result.
The worst thing you can do from that is to then take that result as law, as an absolute. Irrefutable, unchangeable.

And that's exactly what we have today.
These laws about all these different phenomena.
So then people discover things that break these laws, that break these mental models and we retract the statements and the evidence to conform to the manmade laws.

But what if that's exactly what happens?

What I'd we finally achieve that concrete law? That thing that combines science and mathematics? That combines the arts and the sciences? What then? What more is there?

They're all related anyway, that's the point.
They're all expressions of something.

So to bring it back to the philosophy of nature, there's no separation between light, or thought or electricity or whatever because it's all based on this one field and the propagation and contraction.

Perhaps if we subject ourselves to thoes things which, to the very fiber of our core we hate, we will discover true happiness that they converse.

>How do we unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity?

String theory.

>but thats too hard, give me something a brainlet like me could understand

is that way

What's next after string theory?

>How do we unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity?

by achieving critical mass of cute cat pictures on Veeky Forums

Then will we know if the car is alive or dead?

>How do we unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity?

We keep experimenting on even smaller and smaller scales until we notice a consistent deviation from the theoretical values obtain from accounting for general relativistic and quantum mechanical effects.

We can come up with all the theories we want, but people will always disagree until experiment settles the debate.

Consequently, string theory will always have its backers because even if someone empirically formulates a theory of quantum gravity, string fags will still claim they're right because that non-falsifiability.

That's working our way backwards. We run into the same issue experimenting on things, instead, at a larger and larger scale.

Then what's the solution? Focus on experimenting on the increasingly complicated. Try to get as far away from that initial simplicity as we possibly can.

You're trying to work us back to the big bang. I'm trying to work us to the end of time. It might seem grim, but at least we'll have time on our side.

the irony of this thread is that people are so close to the answer and yet fail to see what is on front of them

That's the Divine Comedy. The irony inherent in all life.

It's actually pretty funny once you get the hang of it.

GR is an approximation of the SM there's no need to unify them

/thread