Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Here Is An Interesting Coincidence

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Clerk on January 13, 2004 03:32:31 UTC

Paul,

I have a rather slow computer and while waiting for things tohappen on it, I generally am reading a book. Just as I was waiting for your recent post above to open I was reading on pg 152 of Smolin's book, 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity'. Here I quote what I just read:

"...we do not relly understand QED. We know the principles of the theory and we can deduce from them the basic equations that define the theory. But we cannot actually solve these equations, or even prove that they are mathematically consistent. Instead to make sense of them, we have to resort to a kind of subterfuge. We make assumptions about the nature of the solutions- which after 50 years are still unproved- and these lead to a procedure for calculating approximately what hapenes..."

So QED the most accurate theory ever is not consistent or understood. It then is suprizing that Dr Dick does not get credit for developing a consistent theory of the same.

J

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins