Matt Strassler’s description of Einstein’s career is very interesting. But, what is the point?
“If he were not already a Nobelist, his great works would not have been accepted by the Physics community.” Then, who is the one to loss if this was the case?
What is the “goal” for physicists? Seeking for “truth”? Or, bragging each other’s works?
If Nature disguises himself as a retarded kid who sells snake oil in the market while the “final physics equation” was inscribed on the bottom of the bottle, will physicists have the ability to recognize that openly revealed secret? Or, it will be simply rejected, as it is not in accord with the “scientific process”.
If we lack the ability to recognize the truth which lies outside of the manmade “scientific process”, many of us will finish our lives with failures on our lifetime goal of seeking the truth. Who is the loser?
While every landmark can be gone around, the “Final” truth can never be gone over, gone under or gone around. We have the right to reject the truth but cannot escape from the failure of our lifetime goal as a physicist. Perhaps, many of us don’t give a damn about our lifetime goal anyway, as the “scientific process” is much more important than that.
We think we see the world out there, but all we ever observe is the image created in the mind – we each shape our own reality.
When two philosophical starting points like quantum mechanics and general relativity is not, appropriate and compatible – why constraints on principles ?
@Veeramohan: “ … I wonder how you got this flow of words, …”
The flow is as follow:
1. It was Einstein’s great misfortune of not knowing the “Super Unified force equation”. Otherwise, his theory will definitely be able to encompass the quantum principle.
2. Richard P. Feynman went upstairs with an irreducible lifetime regret of not knowing how God pushed His pencil of getting the simple number Alpha. Now, we know how a pencil should move to dig it out.
3. Since 1960, the little squire (experiments) acted as a King. Those data hodgepodge became the Standard Model, that is, the SM has “zero” theoretical “base”, not able to derive most of the free parameters it used in the model. Yet, a simple G-string (no known physic was put-in) can produce the entire SM particle zoo (see http://blog.vixra.org/2013/05/16/why-i-still-like-string-theory/ ). That is, a base for the SM particle zoo is now known.
4. The Higgs game was only a “reverse engineering” from the data hodgepodge; again without any theoretical base, not even know how to calculate the mass of the Higgs egg (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/06/higgs-chicken-higgs-egg-and-higgs.html ), and the search of it went all the way up to 650 Gev. On the other hand, the G-string base gives a “Physics” description of the Weak-scale dynamics. As the producing “u” is one step before the rising of “W” in this G-string music-chair game, it cannot be much heavier than the W, by 50% more at the best.
As this G-string is also the “base” for the three points above, it becomes “knowledge”. That is, I know that the Higgs game is just a fairy tale, the hallucination; no experiment is needed for reach this conclusion. Of course, for a doubting Tom, he can wait for the test data which might mislead him for generations as many test data now is more political-correct than being scientific correct. But, the “truth” will always prevail sooner or later. This time looks like going to be later.
@S. Dino: “The Perlmutter Super-Nova Observations (1998) started out as routine science;… But the experimental results were not what cosmologists expected… “
The acceleration of the expansion of the universe was the direct “consequence” of the “Super Unification”, and it was discussed in the book “Super Unified Theory —- The foundations of science” (US copyright number TX 1-323-231, registered on April 18, 1984)”, and it is available in “many” university-libraries around the world (USA, France, Japan, etc.). I truly feel sorry for those poor cosmologists.
@Veeramohan: 1. “ … but both of them individually make no “action” at quantum level – so “h” was added. … In relativity, the same “h” was replaced by “c^2″ in E = mc^2. “
“Why was ħ added?” is a history. The important thing is that it was our great luck that it did. The fact that relativity used m in place of ħ is indeed the great hint as the super unification gateway, as the m (mass) is indeed measured with ħ about the internal space-time of an envelope.
@Veeramohan: 2. “Constants are AXIOMS ?”
In a nutshell, physics is a science which studies three parameters; the space, the time and the mass. Yet, their measurements were arbitrarily defined by the human conveniences. Why are we able arbitrarily to define them? The answer is very simply. Any arbitrary acts of ours can never mess up the “absoluteness” of the Nature design. Those three “Nature” parameters must be “locked” by Nature with anchor locks. The nature constants are those locks. Then, the Alpha locks those constants one step further. An article “Arbitrariness and the final unification in physics” is available at (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/arbitrariness-and-final-unification-in.html ).
@Veeramohan: 3. “ … The last published words of Einstein were that all we do by the moment known in physics must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the description of reality.”
In the book “Linguistics Manifesto (ISBN 978-3-8383-9722-1)”, it lists a “Large Complex System Principle”.
The “Large Complex System Principle” (LCSP) —- there is a set principle which governs all large complex systems regardless of whatever those systems are, a number set, a physics set, a life set or a vocabulary set.
Corollary of LCSP (CLCSP) — the laws or principles of a “large complex system x” will have their correspondent laws and principles in a “large complex system y.”
This LCSP is 100% in agreement with Einstein’s last words.