I don’t think this is correct.
Quantic gravity is speculative as far as I know.
Einstein did hypothesize gravity waves based on Relativity, which apparently have a century later been identified.
No, it’s done. They did it. It wasn’t publicized so much because how many people would even understand what it means.
The juice in the story was in the fact of an irreconcileability. The conciliation is boring and mathematical.
Eventually, Einstein will be thought of as a person who gave quantic physics a huge leap forward. His intuitive perceptions which he was able to write in math changed everything. It told quantic physicists where to look, and even how.
For another Einstein to come, the quantic paradigm will have to have been fully internalized and understood. It has to become background, like Newtonian physics. Because the next Einsteiniean task will be to intuitively tie together and find the way forward from the quantic family of theories. Things like understanding what a dimension is, to name a basic one. They are not so much difficult to comprehend as they are offensive to the previous paradigm. It’s more a matter of adjusting the eyes than of taking some intellectual coefficient leap forward.
Quantic analysis is voodoo mumbo jumbo for the sole reason that it is still a foreign language. Watch a movie or listen to a song in a foreign language that used to sound sublimely advanced once you have learned the language, and watch yourself slap yourself on the forehead.
The closest thing we have had to an Einstein since, Maldacena, is great largely for having understood Einstein that way, depriving the task of drama, Einstein of the myth of inviolability, and doing the math.
All geniouses are conceptual first. Not aside from technically proficient, but because of an excess of technical proficiency. Napoleon’s genius for strategy was not aside from his tactical understanding, but because of it. Maldacena is a mathematical beast.
Wrong thread. Edit.
Explain some of the maths to me.
I’m not sure where I would start.
Would you like us to retrieve one of the Maldacena associated papers that led to the quantization of gravity, and go through it piece by piece?
I’m not sure how much use it would be. You sound like you are on the defensive about something, I don’t really sniff out much of the curiosity that would make an endeavour like that edifying.
In fact, if the motive was curiosity, you would probably do best by getting one such paper yourself, going through it, and then coming back here with some things that don’t make sense to you.
Einstein was wrong, but he was right enough to change everything.
It’s not that mass and energy are equivalent, it’s that they are both expressions of a wider family of dynamics.
Retardmaxxing. Im down.
Hahahahaha I don’t know if I am.
Bring the paper then, let’s do it.
One thing that trips people up about quantic analysis is the fact of inherent limitation of information. You are working from a limited set of information. But the mistake people make is assuming a totality of information that you work with segment of. But there is no totality.
There once was a concept of one, not because it was ever there, but because concepts like the infinitesimal or the ideal form imagined one. They made one up.
The acquisition of information is a generative process, not a reductive one.