[OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk>]

On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:

> That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be
> able to answer is "why?".

I think that's the crux of the problem with some current approaches to 
physics. Science does not answer the question "why?". That isn't its job. 
Its job is to explain show "this is how the world works."

> Take gravity as an example. We [have] really good models for it, we can
> predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but what are the
> underlying mechanisms? We may never know.  Einstein would say it's because
> matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? We just
> take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better than
> anything else we've come up with so far.

No, it's stronger than that. Einstein showed us how it works. The 
consequence of having a certain concentration of mass /here/ is to distort 
space-time just /so/ in the region of /here/. No mechanism is required 
because no process is operating.

It seems to me that prodigious amounts of time, energy and money are being 
squandered on trying to find a graviton when no such beast is required to 
exist. Gravity, as Einstein taught us, is an emergent effect of mass in 
space-time. It isn't a force; it's an effect. Yet how many theorists and 
experimenters are thrashing themselves trying to find this imaginary 
particle which is supposed to moderate this imaginary force?

Of course it's natural to wish to fill in the blanks in the standard models, 
but it's too easy to lose sight of what's beyond the end of one's nose. Just 
look at that other profligate waste of resources: string theory. It has 
beauty, but it does not correspond to reality in any practical way. So why 
are whole university faculties around the world staffed with nobody other 
than string theorists?

-- 
Rgds
Peter.