Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Our deepest theories in science are wrong?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Further to “New theory of physics attempts to incorporate information’s “central role” in nature, Scientific American is playing it like it was The Lord of the Rings:

A Meta-Law to Rule Them All: Physicists Devise a “Theory of Everything”

In their paper Deutsch and Marletto demonstrate that information can be encoded in two superinformation media in such a way that it is impossible to retrieve it by measuring the single subsystems separately—that is, entanglement is inevitable. Similarly, in a classical medium, entanglement is impossible. “The appealing thing about this formalism is the way that common features of quantum mechanics fall out,” says Patrick Hayden, a quantum physicist at Stanford University, adding: “I have real respect for the creative thinking behind constructor theory and its ambitions.” He notes, however, that there are competing attempts by other researchers to develop a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics, including ideas based on copying, and as yet it is too early to say which, if any, will prove to be the best description.

Rickles agrees that it will take time for physicists to verify that the theory—which has not yet passed through peer review—is truly successful at uniting classical and quantum information theory. But if affirmed, it would give a boost to Deutsch’s goal to help in the hunt for the long-sought theory of quantum gravity, uniting the currently incompatible quantum theory and general relativity. “This is the first time in the history of science that it’s known that our deepest theories are wrong, so it’s obvious that we need a deeper theory,” Deutsch says.

You can tell people are discombobbed when they clutch onto a new theory that hasn’t even passed peer review.

Hey, messenger.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Graham2: O’Leary: Why not just go straight to the bottom line: you are anti-science. That is an amazing non sequitur.Barb
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
"Cargo Cult Science" is when you prop up evidence to support your Theory. Feynman, who came up with the term, lectured that you need to attack your Theory to advance it. "Feynman Diagrams" are becoming obsolete (Nima Arkani-Hamed et al) and Richard would have no problem with that really. Richard WOULD have problems with many Evo "Scientists" these days.ppolish
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
One more thing we'll be told is "fact" and cannot be questioned...like darwinism, global warming, the multiverse etc.Blue_Savannah
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
You can tell people are discombobbed when they clutch onto a new theory that hasn’t even passed peer review.
Putting aside how odd that sounds here considering what you usually say about peer review... What people? Where?goodusername
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
OT: podcast: "Dr. Robert Marks: Active Information in Metabiology" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-05-28T16_06_40-07_00bornagain77
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Graham2:
O’Leary: Why not just go straight to the bottom line: you are anti-science.
The best way to love science (or religion) is to criticise them relentlessly. Otherwise, the flat earth society wins.Mapou
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
I just saw this video which seems to me to pertain to this question: http://youtu.be/vKA4w2O61Xo Having watched it, can you imagine real scientists trying to disconfirm rather than confirm evolution as true scientific method? I can imagine it. But will the majority ever return to real science like that? That's the real question.jw777
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
O'Leary: Why not just go straight to the bottom line: you are anti-science.Graham2
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Um, have these people read anything by Date & Codd about relational data bases? It is AMAZINGLY simple to encode data in a single data base that cannot be correctly retrieved without knowing which columns/fields connect to which other column/field. I see this every day. I call it "magic: the connection as embedded in the application software. It helps companies selling commercial applications with a data base make the cost of converting to one of the competing applications incredibly expensive and mostly likely impossible. There is the chance that given a substantial, but perhaps not infinite, amount of time that I can create new records using the application's front end and then VERY carefully check to see which other columns/fields get populated and with what values, I MIGHT guess 95% of the "magic". But I'm guessing that these guys are talking about rather simple data structures.mahuna
May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply