Are you ready for new physics?

Yes, have been for a while.

Not new. LQG has been around for awhile, but (if you ask Smolin) has gotten the short end of the stick in funding because of the string theorists. He’s bitter about it.

LQG is getting more press recently, but the idea has been around for many years.

I enjoyed this quote:

“For the scale of chunkiness that Hogan hopes to find, he needs to measure distances to an accuracy of 10–18m, about 100m times smaller than a hydrogen atom, and collect data at a rate of about 100m readings per second. Amazingly, such an experiment is not only possible, but practical. “We were able to do it pretty cheaply because of advances in photonics, a lot of off-the-shelf parts, fast electronics and things like that,” Hogan says. “It’s a pretty speculative experiment, so you wouldn’t have done it unless it was cheap.” The holometer is currently humming away, collecting data at the target accuracy; he expects to have preliminary readings by the end of the year.”

I love science. Thanks for bringing it up!

@LuckyGuy I question the validity of any science article that would say ”...about 100m times smaller…”.

Things cannot be “100 times smaller”; they can be 1/100th of the size of something else, they can be two orders of magnitude smaller. But you cannot multiply and be smaller or less.

Innumerate articles are not to be trusted.

And know you know why many who are into physics are also into strong beer.

Seriously though, I think we’re overdue for a fundamental shakeup of our understanding of things. A shakeup on the scale of heliocentricity beating geocentricity, or realizing that that “Fire” isn’t an element.

@zenvelo That’s the problem with mainstream coverage of science; writers must choose between accuracy and readability, and since most readers think a bit different from those of a more technical bent, stuff like that is fairly common.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around “old physics” to be perfectly honest. Last I heard there’s this stuff called dark matter that is supposed to account for the majority of all mass in the universe, but no scientist has ever directly observed it to date.

I am not a physicist, but I’m glad there are people out there doing these experiments and thinking about these big things. I’m also grateful for writers who take the time to relate these things in simple ways.

I’ve glanced at the article, and I believe it will make for good breakfast reading. I’ll give some feedback tomorrow.

I saw this Q at the bottom of the page next to this and came up with a String Cheese Incident Theory.

@zenvelo That bothered me too. However they had already stated the number in scientific notation 10 ^-18 m (I can’t write it correctly here) and that is all we “scientists” need. The other description is for the layman to get the idea that it is much smaller than a hydrogen atom.

This is the first time I’ve come across the notion that space itself might not be infinitely divisible, and at its “lower limit” might be described as “packets”. What a world!

Someday we will have an explanation for the universe that brings relativity and quantum mechanics together. These theories are completely incompatible it seems and the incompatibility is most stark when trying to describe black holes. Black holes are both classical and quantum at the same time and are very poorly understood. I don’t we can explain black holes without a theory that unites relativity and quantum mechanics.

I think the breakthrough will come from our attempts to explain how black holes work but I think the answer will take us another step beyond what we can readily imagine. In that sense am I ready for it? No, but I am curious all the same.

I too believe that when the 2 are reconciled the consequences will be enormous. I even suspect that the problem of conquering the distances to the stars will be wrapped up somewhere in this. But then the question becomes will we be around long enough and in any condition to utilize the knowledge.