ProcessBlue

Yeah, looks like someone high up has a food obsession...

Short answer no.

Long answer, the input you are thinking of (particle interactions) is already what partly defines the theory you are trying to uncover. So you have a serious chicken-egg situation.

You could think about inputting the data that comes out of particle detectors to look for patterns etc. and that sort of thing is being done already. However there is a difference between finding existing patterns and then figuring out the underlying theory which is the mathematical construct that lets you predict things.

Finally, even if you could have a "black box" predict stuff (correctly), the black box-ness is a serious problem for scientists from a meta-science or philosophy of science point of view, and people would be highly unsatisfied until they actually understood what was going on.

ProcessBlue

11년 전discuss

A very simple counter example is that we can "see" the bend in spacetime made by the sun from how the earth makes a circular path around it, as opposed to going in a straight line.

LIGO just looks at the path (or rather just the length of the path) of photons.

ProcessBlue

11년 전discuss

Yes (but also no). The initial form of this equation is

    (mc^2)^2 = E^2 - (pc^2)^2

The Pythagorean theorem tells you the length of a 2D vector when you know x and y lengths. Here mc^2 is the length of the 4-momentum vector [E, pc^2] (where p is a standard 3D vector). However since our 4D spacetime is not Euclidian but Minkowskian the sign in the generalised Pythagoras theorem is a minus and not a plus.

comments