Solving the Most Complex Physical Features of Nature: How Far Off Are We?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cjackson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of understanding complex physical phenomena and the potential of quantum computers in discovering a final theory of physics. Participants explore the limitations of current mathematical models and the feasibility of finding simpler descriptions of nature's complexities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references Brian Greene's assertion that the mathematics for describing even simple physical phenomena is complex, leading to the use of simplified models by physicists.
  • Another participant challenges the notion that the limitation lies with mathematics, suggesting instead that it is the physicists' ability to formulate a final theory that is at fault.
  • Some participants propose that while current mathematical models are complex, this does not imply that solutions do not exist; rather, they suggest the possibility of developing new mathematical frameworks or clever applications of existing mathematics.
  • There is speculation about the role of quantum computers in potentially discovering a final theory or determining the existence of phenomena like wormholes, but the timeline for achieving this remains uncertain.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the limitations in physics, with some attributing it to the complexity of mathematics and others to the physicists' conceptual frameworks. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on the path forward.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that while current mathematical models are complex, the discussion does not resolve the question of whether a simpler mathematical description can be found or if existing models can be effectively utilized.

cjackson
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
I've been reading Brian Greene's books and he says the math for describing even the simplest physical phenomenon in the real world is wildly complex, thus physicist use vastly simplified models. Since current math is insufficient to describe everything in the universe and a final theory, will humans ever be able to figure out the most complex physical features of nature? Would quantum computers be able to find the final theory, determine if worm holes can exist, etc.? How far off are we from this lofty goal?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sorry you are not generating any responses at the moment. Is there any additional information you can share with us? Any new findings?
 
cjackson said:
I've been reading Brian Greene's books and he says the math for describing even the simplest physical phenomenon in the real world is wildly complex, thus physicist use vastly simplified models. Since current math is insufficient to describe everything in the universe and a final theory, will humans ever be able to figure out the most complex physical features of nature? Would quantum computers be able to find the final theory, determine if worm holes can exist, etc.? How far off are we from this lofty goal?

You jumped to a conclusion, in your second sentence, that doesn't follow from you first sentence. The limitation is not on mathematics but on people (mainly physicists) coming up with a final theory. String theory and loop quantum gravity are current attempts, but neither has been able to propose a critical experiment.
 
cjackson said:
I've been reading Brian Greene's books and he says the math for describing even the simplest physical phenomenon in the real world is wildly complex, thus physicist use vastly simplified models. Since current math is insufficient to describe everything in the universe and a final theory, will humans ever be able to figure out the most complex physical features of nature? Would quantum computers be able to find the final theory, determine if worm holes can exist, etc.? How far off are we from this lofty goal?

Complex doesn't mean non-existant. Greene is not saying the mathematical models are non-existant, but that the problems are very hard to solve. Perhaps we can find a new mathematics that describes things easier, in a more simple language, that we can solve. But perhaps we just have to be clever with our current mathematics. The answer is unknown.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
565