(1) Intuition how antennas and electromagnetic radiation work. (2) A model how previously unappreciated physics gives rise to macroscopic phenomena like standing waves and interference. (3) A solution to long standing problems like wave-particle duality, vacuum energy, and radiation reaction.
The set of objects in the universe that I can understand contains the set of things I can explain simply. The set of things I can explain simply may be identical to the set of things I truly understand, as you suggest.
But the set of possible accurate models of the universe is much larger than the set of possible models humans can understand much less articulate.
We found the rules that make the most sense to us that operate on the scale that makes the most sense to us first. That science diverged from there wasn’t a mistake, it was inevitable.
I don’t know what vacuum energy is, and it doesn’t make intuitive sense to me. But neither do black holes, and many other things that fell out of models and only gathered evidence later. The one piece of intellectual heritage worth preserving from the legacy of theology as the queen of sciences is the basic humility that we ought to still bring to the practice. The universe is under no obligation to make itself accessible to human intelligence. All the strange fraying we discover at the margins should only underscore that need for humility. Be like Kepler: accept the spheres aren’t perfect after all.
(Edit: my bad reading of Hans' article -- same referenced paper; different location)
Feynman's take on the scientific method was good (first minute or so of the video below), but the plaster work on his QED house didn't follow this advice.
when u expand on that thought and on the politicization of science, the wonder is not that we dont have a Mr Fusion unit in every home. But that we have power at all. Or that we have made as much progress as we have.
The set of objects in the universe that I can understand contains the set of things I can explain simply. The set of things I can explain simply may be identical to the set of things I truly understand, as you suggest.
But the set of possible accurate models of the universe is much larger than the set of possible models humans can understand much less articulate.
We found the rules that make the most sense to us that operate on the scale that makes the most sense to us first. That science diverged from there wasn’t a mistake, it was inevitable.
I don’t know what vacuum energy is, and it doesn’t make intuitive sense to me. But neither do black holes, and many other things that fell out of models and only gathered evidence later. The one piece of intellectual heritage worth preserving from the legacy of theology as the queen of sciences is the basic humility that we ought to still bring to the practice. The universe is under no obligation to make itself accessible to human intelligence. All the strange fraying we discover at the margins should only underscore that need for humility. Be like Kepler: accept the spheres aren’t perfect after all.
Oliver Consa's paper on arXiv is worth a read relative to QED.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.02078
(Edit: my bad reading of Hans' article -- same referenced paper; different location)
Feynman's take on the scientific method was good (first minute or so of the video below), but the plaster work on his QED house didn't follow this advice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdlvW4InrgE
Question: is there any possibility of applying your insights towards designing a better solar cell? Would solve a lot of problems...
QED works great -- once you assume that an electron has infinite mass -- when needed to make an integral converge.
“the most accurate theory ever,”
Sounds much like " the most ethical administration ever "
"Safest and most effective vaccine ever."
when u expand on that thought and on the politicization of science, the wonder is not that we dont have a Mr Fusion unit in every home. But that we have power at all. Or that we have made as much progress as we have.