• Nougat
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    11 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    At first blush, this article seems to say that there’s a solid hypothesis for which the math works consistently, and they know what they want to do in order to test that hypothesis. It’s just a matter of designing and performing experiments.

    But then, I read this:

    [Co-author] Weller-Davies added: “A delicate interplay must exist if quantum particles such as atoms are able to bend classical spacetime. There must be a fundamental trade-off between the wave nature of atoms, and how large the random fluctuations in spacetime need to be.

    I know atoms aren’t “particles, and I’m pretty damned sure they’re also not quanta.

    • anzich
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      9 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Atoms are composite particles. And they surely are quantum particles as you need quantum mechanics to describe their behavior

  • style99
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    So, we’re just calling anything a “theory” nowadays? How about the scientific method? Or is that just too much work for anybody in a post-Einstein world?